Mueller Investigation

"Required to protect your identity" is now another figment of people's imagination, as long as the "Republican" party is in control, and if you do anything that opposes them.

Republicans can never again claim to be the Law and Order party. State Security Party maybe.

That's nonsense.

Horowitz has not done anything improper, nor released any information that's claimed to have been improper.

And the IC IG (Atkinson) is a leftie or never trumper, and nobody's claimed he broke any laws or best practices. He's the only person bound by "whistleblower law" not to out Ciaramella (who isn't even covered by the whistleblower law cited related to the Ukraine phone call).

Anyway, more transparency in government can only help, except in very rare cases that relate to (actual) national security. Always. What's the big secret? All of us should know the individuals responsible for these decisions. Probably would be best for the country if any remaining lawyers on mueller hit team resigned, they were an affront to civil rights, and behaved like jackboot government.

Leftists are far more prone to partisan violence. And with transparency the public ultimately gets to decide the propriety of release of info and any retaliation.

Evidence?

None

Horowitz
https://www.bing.com/search?q=crimes or improprieties by inspector general horowitz&FORM=AWRE

Atkinson
https://www.bing.com/search?q=crime...ty inspector general Atkinson&qs=ds&form=QBRE

jackboot thug-like activity
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roger-...-raid-trump-associate-house-today-2019-01-25/

benefits of transparency in government
https://www.bing.com/search?q=benef...55BF4A0BA01CCA4CEFB95733&FORM=QBRE&sp=1&ghc=1

prominent leftist violence
1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-killed-officer-involved-shooting-police-say/

2
https://www.bing.com/search?q=scali...-33&sk=&cvid=8D4E03B596324178AA8F9C8C77DD776F

3
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Grego...-12&sk=&cvid=6304BC2125064342BD189DAC8A198BD8

4 more generally, Antifa 2019
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=antifa attacks 2019&qpvt=antifa attacks 2019&FORM=VDRE

Just a bunch of right wing propaganda sites. I couldn’t arsed to read them.

So, anything that actually backs your claim?

You've given some instances of left wing violence and some odd tangents abut the FBI, but nothing which demonstrates a greater proclivity for violence compared to the right

Anecdotes are enough to make him comfortable painting with a broad brush.

I'm surprised @Zombie hasn't chimed in to explain why this guy is either a communist spy or interested in a book deal. @Zombie must still be waiting on the Fox and Friends spin to pick which lie to run with.

Oh, we're playing the "violent leftists" game again? All right, how about some data ...

A data analysis performed for Quartz by Athena Chapekis and Lauren Donahoe of the Prosecution Project found that about 75% of those charged for making threats against US politicians come from the ideological right, based on cases going back to 1990.They are almost entirely US citizens, male, and roughly 85% white. About half of the defendants were under 30. The intended targets were primarily Democrats.​

https://qz.com/1578862/arrests-for-death-threats-against-us-politicians-rose-in-2018/

But Antifa!
...
But her emails!!!1!

That's just threats though. Harmless word play. Boys will be boys.

There is this though..

https://www.businessinsider.com/extremist-killings-links-right-wing-extremism-report-2019-1

Deranged Leftist slaps a teen aged Trump supporter at Trump campaign tent in New Hampshire. I bet you won't see CNN reporting it.

Link

But Anna told us the left is never violent.

Where did she say that?

In the various Antifa threads we’ve been told how they are non violent.

Give us an example. One single post is enough, as long as it clearly states or implies "the left is never violent".

Take your time; we'll be waiting...

Tell you what, hold your breath and I'll come back in a while and ask how "blue boy" is doing.

^ Are you trying to get me killed, making me hold my breath that long?

Fortunately, there are plenty of me...

It's 100% bullshit.

The DOJ said: "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor − including under oath − on multiple occasions.”

McCabe was fired from the FBI for doing this.

The DOJ Inspector General said:

"We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).​

We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that, because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).​

We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).​

The DOJ Inspector General referred McCabe for four charges.

August 2019, US Attorney for District of DC Jessie Liu recommended McCabe face charges for lying to federal agents.

And now he doesn't face charges?



Side note: Jessie Liu just had her nomination yanked by Trump and she has left the DOJ. Perhaps there is more than is known publicly.

https://www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019

Here's the transcript of them talking to the jurors before the trial. I pulled out the juror that is causing all the uproar. If you want to see it in the document it is pages 92-96

**************************************************************
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, this is juror number1261.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: We've had the opportunity to review your questionnaire but I do have a few follow up questions.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay.

THE COURT: I understand that you do have a law degree; is that correct?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you practicing law now?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Have you ever practiced criminal law?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, not criminal law.

THE COURT: You did once serve I believe as the foreperson of a federal grand jury; is that correct?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So that was a pretty long assignment as I understand it.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Two years.

THE COURT: When you came and went was it in this federal courthouse or --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, it was in Western District of Tennessee.

THE COURT: At that time as you know, you only heard from one side. You heard the government's side of the case. And you were only asked to determine whether there was probable cause to believe whether a crime had been committed and the defendant had committed it. You understand that that will not be the standard that applies in this case and the government is going to have to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump's campaign in some way?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.

THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.

THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: You actually have had some interest in Congress yourself?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

THE COURT: Does the fact that this case involves allegations of not being truthful to Congress, is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations alone would make it hard for you to be fair?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

THE COURT: Does the government have any questions?

MR. KRAVIS: No, Your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: Defense?

MR. BUSCHEL: Good afternoon.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Good afternoon.

MR. BUSCHEL: Did you ever work for anyone in Congress?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BUSCHEL: You've worked on campaigns for Congress people running for Congress?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I ran for Congress.

MR. BUSCHEL: You ran for Congress?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I worked on my own campaign.

MR. BUSCHEL: And you have friends who worked for other congressmen?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have any political aspirations now?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't know, not federal.

MR. BUSCHEL: What might they be?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My home state in Tennessee. No local.

MR. BUSCHEL: Just recognize that there might be some media --What are your aspirations?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I served, can I just say I served in political office in Memphis in a local office on the school board. So I, one day I wake up and say I run for, you know,office again in Memphis to impact education. One day I wake up and say no way in the world would I do that. So I don't have an immediate plan to run for office.

MR. BUSCHEL: The fact that you run for an office,you're affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I'm saying and getting at?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.

MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?

MR. KRAVIS: Objection.

THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right, you can step out.(Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?

MR. BUSCHEL: No.

THE COURT: Okay, let's bring in the next juror.
******************************************************************

Just based on what people found on her social media I'd say he's going to get another trial.

Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?

https://thehill.com/opinion/crimina...-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone

She was Juror No. 1261, and her examination by the federal court and counsel before the trial was anything but notable. And that is precisely the problem.

Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.”

That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.

.....

Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

.....

She never mentioned that she specifically discussed Stone’s arrest and the objections to his treatment during that arrest as well as denouncing all of the associates of Trump as a virtual criminal enterprise.

.....

Stone’s counsel, Robert Buschel, also asked a few questions but was either entirely uninformed or utterly incompetent. Buschel only asked about Hart being a Democrat who ran for Congress. The examination by the defense amounted to less than two pages and roughly 250 words of exchange with Hart. It seems most likely that Buschel did not have a clue about Hart’s actual political activism and commentary.

That lack of knowledge is not surprising since multiple questions on the jury questionnaire allowed her to reveal her past protests and postings. For example, Question 30 asked whether she had any opinion about figures such Donald Trump. There also was Question 23 that asked whether she had "written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?" Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.

If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.

Remember “Putin’s favorite Congressman” Dana Rohrabacher? He might have been a go-between offering Julian Assange a pardon from Trump to keep his mouth shut about how Wikileaks got the DNC emails. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears

Now this is Assange’s lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt, but if he’s got any proof... Trump has, of course, already pretended never to have met Rohrabacher, so that’s a positive sign the story is true.

Interesting claim. We'll see if it holds up.

Adding to the chorus asking for you to source your quote.