I took this on a lunchtime walkabout, the summer before last in Ottawa.

The crosswalk is under about four grey inches of ice and slush right now. The dreams lie buried, but they will rise again!

Same prosecutor (Weissmann), same MO he used with with Enron's Fastow


Boom.

The rats are all trying to grab the last deck chair as the Trumptanic continues to take on water.

It might all revolve around Comey's firing and making sure there's a solid obstruction case. Seems like reasonable speculation to me, especially considering who is speculating: a former FBI Special Agent, Counterintelligence Division.
https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/955931425148108802

I mean Eric Garland, John Schindler, Louise and Claude.

The reason I ask is that Garland has just published a thread on an analytical study he did called GRINGO11. The report, which is not published in its entirety for reasons that should become obvious, tracks deza publications, along with troll and bot attacks, along with a wealth of background information on the originators and interconnections of the attack sources. He mentions the "Gang of Four" specifically as targets of such attacks. He put the attacks on a timeline that is based on "bad news for Trump" news stories. Guess what pattern emerged?

He says democracy isn't toast yet, but we need the Fairness Doctrine back ASAP.

Click through the tweet for the thread:
https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/955951454384279552

No telephones are normally allowed in a SCIF, so the calls would have been made during breaks in the proceedings. Calls during a break could have been made out of earshot of other participants.

Burck might have two calls: one call to the WH, to set up the WH to make press statements about it, then a second call to Mueller's office to get the instructions that Bannon actually followed.

I know, we'll never know. But it does satisfy the two criteria - what the WH said to the press, and the likely fact that Bannon is a cooperating witness. One call as cover to fake out the WH, the second call for reals.

On edit: I don't know what that would do to Burck's conflict of interest position vis a vis the WH.

Source: Politico

President Donald Trump's former adviser Steve Bannon refused to answer questions Tuesday from the House intelligence committee about his time in the White House, prompting panel members to subpoena him on the spot, according to a person familiar with the interview.

Bannon appeared before the committee as part of its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, speaking just weeks after a falling-out with Trump over comments he made in an explosive new book.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) confirmed Tuesday that he issued a subpoena for Bannon. “Of course I authorized the subpoena," he told reporters. "That’s how the rules work.”

The source said Republican lawmakers — including Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and former federal prosecutor Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) — were frustrated that Bannon was not more forthcoming. Bannon did not invoke executive privilege, the source said.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/steve-bannon-congress-testimony-subpoena-341492

---

Stock up on the popcorn, it's showtime!