Meanwhile

RaceBannon

Rosenstein testifies he would not have signed FISA warrant for Trump aide if he knew of problems

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rosenstein-defends-russia-probe-in-senate-testimony-faults-fbi-on-fisa-problems

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents.

WestlinnDuck

Strong stuff from Rosenstein. If only he was in a position to discuss the case and learn that the DOJ and FBI had no evidence of collusion, he could have terminated the witch hunt. He either knew or was beyond incompetent. Door number 1 seems the better choice.

SFGbob

RaceBannon said:

Rosenstein testifies he would not have signed FISA warrant for Trump aide if he knew of problems

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rosenstein-defends-russia-probe-in-senate-testimony-faults-fbi-on-fisa-problems

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents.

Okay great. Now what do we do about the people who engaged in that misconduct because simply allowing them to resign or transferring or demoting them is fucking unacceptable.

Sledog

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

Rosenstein testifies he would not have signed FISA warrant for Trump aide if he knew of problems

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rosenstein-defends-russia-probe-in-senate-testimony-faults-fbi-on-fisa-problems

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents.

Okay great. Now what do we do about the people who engaged in that misconduct because simply allowing them to resign or transferring or demoting them if fucking unacceptable.

Jail.

SFGbob

The entire investigation and the appointment of a special counsel was all predicated on Russian disinformation and misconduct by the FBI.

People need to go to fucking jail.

RaceBannon

WestlinnDuck said:

Strong stuff from Rosenstein. If only he was in a position to discuss the case and learn that the DOJ and FBI had no evidence of collusion, he could have terminated the witch hunt. He either knew or was beyond incompetent. Door number 1 seems the better choice.

https://foxnews.com/politics/cruz-slams-rosenstein-on-russia-probe-says-he-was-complicit-or-grossly-negligent


I was against state over reach before it was cool

SFGbob

http://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1268208931056365568

RaceBannon

So Rosenstein is going with grossly negligent

WestlinnDuck

Can't go to jail if you are grossly negligent. Just ask PIPS.

SFGbob

Rosenstein says that the didn't even read the entire FISA application renewal. He just signed off it. He claims to of had no knowledge that the Dossier was complete crap, which the FBI knew for a fact in January of 2017.

He is just your standard government employee paper pusher.

PurpleThrobber

RaceBannon said:

So Rosenstein is going with grossly negligent

This does not diminish the love for the joobs in any way shape or form.

SFGbob

Anyone else watch this hearing this morning? There wasn't a single Rat on the committee who showed even the smallest amount of interest in this, all of their questions were designed to deflect and prop up investigation. Booker spent his time complaining about the fact that they were even holding the hearing.

SFGbob

Just like with Mueller we now find out that Rosenstein had no real interest in determining whether the Dossier, which we now know was the lynch pin for securing the FISA warrants was factual or who paid for it.

The entire fucking Mueller investigation was supposed to be about looking into Russian interference in our election and now we know that the Dossier, which was almost certainly Russian disinformation, was of no interest to either Rosenstein or Mueller.

Nobody was ever prosecuted for anything related to colluding with the Russians and the investigation never even bothered to look into who paid for Russian disinformation that was used to launch the investigation and not a single Rat sitting on that committee has any interest in looking into any of these questions.

RaceBannon

It's a sham and a mockery

Some of us knew that

SFGbob

RaceBannon said:

It's a sham and a mockery

Some of us knew that

Rosenstein just relied upon what he was told. It was a reauthorization so he never bothered to look into the accuracy of the initial application. And since he now hides behind the claim that nobody informed him of the problems with the Dossier, or any of the other initial documents, he signed off on renewing the warrants.

The FBI and DOJ knew for at least 6 months prior that the Dossier was crap but because nobody told Rod, it was okay for him to sign off on renewing the warrants.

RaceBannon

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

SFGbob

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

creepycoug

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

SFGbob

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

It was a rhetorical question but thanks.

PurpleThrobber

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Depends on whether controls have been circumvented and whether the CEO had knowledge.

If a fraud was being perpetrated including collusion going undetected at lower levels, he'd have a shot. If he had knowledge, maybe depending on what the mitigation performed was. Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

SFGbob

PurpleThrobber said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Depends on whether controls have been circumvented and whether the CEO had knowledge.

If a fraud was being perpetrated including collusion going undetected at lower levels, he'd have a shot. If he had knowledge, maybe depending on what the mitigation performed was. Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

What about if he says that he never bothered to read all of the financial reports and he never talked to the CFO about the fact that they knew the numbers were crap 6 months earlier?

PurpleThrobber

SFGbob said:

PurpleThrobber said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Depends on whether controls have been circumvented and whether the CEO had knowledge.

If a fraud was being perpetrated including collusion going undetected at lower levels, he'd have a shot. If he had knowledge, maybe depending on what the mitigation performed was. Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

What about if he says that he never bothered to read all of the financial reports and he never talked to the CFO about the fact that they knew the numbers were crap 6 months earlier?

Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

GreenRiverGatorz

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Thanks, Enron!

creepycoug

PurpleThrobber said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Depends on whether controls have been circumvented and whether the CEO had knowledge.

If a fraud was being perpetrated including collusion going undetected at lower levels, he'd have a shot. If he had knowledge, maybe depending on what the mitigation performed was. Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

Yes.

creepycoug

SFGbob said:

PurpleThrobber said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Depends on whether controls have been circumvented and whether the CEO had knowledge.

If a fraud was being perpetrated including collusion going undetected at lower levels, he'd have a shot. If he had knowledge, maybe depending on what the mitigation performed was. Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

What about if he says that he never bothered to read all of the financial reports and he never talked to the CFO about the fact that they knew the numbers were crap 6 months earlier?

No. That won't work.

I encourage you to read the contents of the certifications signed by the CEO and CFO submitted with each periodic report filed with the SEC pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, as amended.

I assume this was not a rhetorical question.

creepycoug

GreenRiverGatorz said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Thanks, Enron!

Yes, and World Com. Those companies changed the entire regulatory platform on which public companies exist. They also provided the big accounting firms with employment for life.

SFGbob

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

PurpleThrobber said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Depends on whether controls have been circumvented and whether the CEO had knowledge.

If a fraud was being perpetrated including collusion going undetected at lower levels, he'd have a shot. If he had knowledge, maybe depending on what the mitigation performed was. Otherwise, SOX is not kind to the ignorant.

What about if he says that he never bothered to read all of the financial reports and he never talked to the CFO about the fact that they knew the numbers were crap 6 months earlier?

No. That won't work.

I encourage you to read the contents of the certifications signed by the CEO and CFO submitted with each periodic report filed with the SEC pursuant to Rules 13a-14(a) and 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, as amended.

I assume this was not a rhetorical question.

Nope that was rhetorical as well, based entirely on what Rosenstein just did today.

SFGbob

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Thanks, Enron!

Yes, and World Com. Those companies changed the entire regulatory platform on which public companies exist. They also provided the big accounting firms with employment for life.

Enron didn't workout too well for Arthur Anderson.

GreenRiverGatorz

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Thanks, Enron!

Yes, and World Com. Those companies changed the entire regulatory platform on which public companies exist. They also provided the big accounting firms with employment for life.

Enron didn't workout too well for Arthur Anderson.

It worked out okay. Most of the partners got cushy jobs with the remaining Big 4, and their business increased three-fold with guaranteed SOX-compliance work for life.

GrundleStiltzkin

GreenRiverGatorz said:

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Thanks, Enron!

Yes, and World Com. Those companies changed the entire regulatory platform on which public companies exist. They also provided the big accounting firms with employment for life.

Enron didn't workout too well for Arthur Anderson.

It worked out okay. Most of the partners got cushy jobs with the remaining Big 4, and their business increased three-fold with guaranteed SOX-compliance work for life.

Worked out for the next 4-5 firms down. The line for the Big 4 moved up, and a lot of real nice engagements rolled down to the next tier.

creepycoug

SFGbob said:

creepycoug said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

creepycoug said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

McCabe is now calling Rosenstein a liar

Rats fighting

Do CEOs who sign off on the company's financials get to hide behind "Nobody informed me of the problems with the numbers" defense when the SEC comes after them?

Mostly, no.

Thanks, Enron!

Yes, and World Com. Those companies changed the entire regulatory platform on which public companies exist. They also provided the big accounting firms with employment for life.

Enron didn't workout too well for Arthur Anderson.

It did for the others, where all the AA accountants went to work.