Author Topic: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State  (Read 285320 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: WT: Agents call out 'mob-like mentality' at FBI
« Reply #1400 on: August 23, 2022, 12:16:05 PM »
Reminder: An affidavit is a sworn legal document. It is a FELONY to lie in an affidavit.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-officer-truthfulness-and-brady-decision

Agents call out ‘mob-like mentality’ at FBI

Widespread complaints of leaders go to the top

BY KERRY PICKET THE WASHINGTON TIMES

FBI whistleblowers accused bureau management in different field offices of corruption, cover-ups and retaliation against rank-and-file agents who attempted to expose it, The Washington Times has learned. Current and former FBI leaders at the bureau’s offices in Miami, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, New York, and Newark, New Jersey, are facing whistleblower complaints that the supervisors:

• Forced or coerced agents to sign false affidavits.

•Fabricated terrorism cases to pump up performance statistics.


• Sexually harassed and stalked a female agent.

• Engaged in sexual acts with a subordinate in a government vehicle and crashed the vehicle.

One of the whistleblowers, an FBI agent who said superiors, including FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, ignored her accusations of sexual harassment, said the bureau suffers from a “mob-like mentality.”

“The FBI is completely out of control and its culture and structure needs to change. Not only is the political bias completely out of control and disgustingly obvious, the FBI knows they will not be held accountable for their illegal behavior and misconduct,” she said in a letter to Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

The Times reviewed some of the complaints and learned details about other complaints from the whistleblowers or their attorney.

The complaints were turned over to Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and likely will be

Exclusive

part of a broader examination of Justice Department conduct, according to the whistleblowers’ attorney.

The misconduct charges add to the mounting mistrust of the Justice Department and FBI after the Aug. 8 raid of former President Donald Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, Florida. It was the first-ever FBI raid of a former president’s home.

Another whistleblower, a former employee who worked for the FBI office in Buffalo, told The Times that FBI honchos in Washington focus on the volume of cases to evaluate the special agent in charge, or SAC, who runs a field office. That leads some office supervisors to inflate the numbers.

“It’s basically a report card for him, so at the end of his two-year term as a SAC, he gets moved to a better position down in Washington. And everything focuses around his metrics,” the employee said.

“You have to have so many terrorism cases per year in your office, or else you fail,” he said. “So they would come to us and say things like ‘Open up a case. I don’t care if it’s got merit or not. Just open it up. We only have nine, and we need 10 for me to pass.’” This problem is not exclusive to the Buffalo office but is found in FBI field offices all over the country, said Kurt Siuzdak, a former FBI agent and former whistleblower who now serves as a legal counsel for FBI employees who call out corruption at the bureau.

“Every Thanksgiving and Christmas, there’s a number of field offices, and the SAC picks somebody for everybody to follow because it helps them with their metrics,” Mr. Siuzdak said. “So they pick somebody to scrutinize, often without merit from wherever, and that’s the bad guy you need to follow and put your assets on.”

Mr. Siuzdak said field offices have names for these holiday operations, such as “Turkey Day Terrorist” or “Thanksgiving Day Terrorist.”

Mr. Siuzdak has multiple clients in the FBI who say agents in Salt Lake City were coerced to sign a false affidavit, sworn written statements used as evidence in court.

According to the agents’ complaint, Mr. Siuzdak said, the affidavit did not accurately describe the facts and gave the wrong impression of the evidence.

“If your affidavit kind of mischaracterizes something … agents shouldn’t be pressured to sign,” Mr. Siuzdak said. “They should be pressured to sign correct and truthful affidavits.”

Another former agent revealed that a special agent in charge at the Miami field office is accused of engaging in an adulterous affair with an intelligence analyst who was married to another man from a different government agency.

According to the agent’s complaint, the SAC and the intelligence analyst “took an amorous drive” to celebrate his promotion and crashed while engaged in a sex act.

The complaint said the special agent in charge was still promoted. After an internal investigation, his punishment, by his request, was to be demoted back to SAC at the Miami field office.

The complaints add to a torrent of FBI whistleblowers whose accusations include trumped-up domestic terrorism cases and inaccurate labeling of verifi ed evidence against Hunter Biden as disinformation

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
WT: Durham prosecutor withdraws
« Reply #1401 on: August 23, 2022, 12:21:21 PM »
Key Durham prosecutor withdraws from Danchenko case

Sides fight on using classified info for fall trial

BY JEFF MORDOCK THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A top prosecutor for special counsel John Durham has withdrawn from the criminal case against Igor Danchenko, who was a source for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, less than two months before the trial is set to begin.

Assistant special counsel Andrew DeFilippis withdrew from the case, according to a filing late Sunday by Mr. Durham. The filing did not offer any more details.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

Mr. DeFilippis has a November trial in New York in which he is prosecuting two Americans charged with providing material support to the Islamic State. That trial is scheduled to start roughly three weeks after the Danchenko case, so it’s possible the departure was designed to keep from spreading himself too thin.

The high-profile departure comes at an odd time in the case, with Mr. Danchenko’s trial scheduled to start Oct. 16 and both sides mired in a fight over whether his lawyers can use classified information.

Mr. DeFilippis oversaw the failed prosecution of former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was charged with lying to the FBI. In May, a jury in Washington concluded that Mr. Sussmann was not guilty after about six hours of deliberation.

Mr. DeFilippis was also a key prosecutor in Mr. Durham’s case against Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to falsifying evidence to justify investigators’ continued surveillance of Carter Page, an adviser to former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

It is not publicly known if Mr. Durham has any more cases pending or if Mr. DeFilippis would continue to be involved in those cases.

Mr. Danchenko last fall was charged with repeatedly lying to the FBI about how he compiled information for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified dossier of now-debunked accusations tying Mr. Trump to Russia. He has pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Danchenko is accused of intentionally misleading the FBI when he denied in a 2017 interview that his primary source for a section of the dossier was Charles H. Dolan Jr., a former aide to Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, lost the election to Mr. Trump.

Both sides have spent the summer fighting over the use and production of classified documents.

Earlier this month, Mr. Danchenko filed a motion signaling that he intends to use classifi ed information in his defense. That motion was filed under seal and did not offer details on how the materials could help defense attorneys make their case.

Mr. Durham filed his own objection, also under seal, saying he opposed the “use, relevance and admissibility” of classified information.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
POTP allows an opinion for Affidavit Disclosure
« Reply #1402 on: August 23, 2022, 01:08:22 PM »
Opinion  Let voters read virtually all of the Mar-a-Lago search affidavit
Image without a caption
By Henry Olsen
Columnist
|
Follow
August 22, 2022 at 5:06 p.m. EDT

Documents related to the search warrant for former president Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., are photographed on Aug. 18. (Jon Elswick/AP Photo)

Listen
5 min

Comment
3618
Add to your saved stories
Save

Gift Article

Share
Federal Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart will decide soon how much to reveal of the FBI’s affidavit that provided the basis for the search of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. He should make virtually all of it public.

Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
Such pre-indictment disclosure would be highly unusual in a normal investigation. Law enforcement needs to operate in a veil of secrecy to accumulate evidence. If targets learn what authorities know, they could more easily destroy evidence or intimidate potential witnesses, thereby hindering or effectively stopping the investigation. This clear public interest rightly overrides other concerns in a typical case.

But this is anything but a typical case. America has become divided into virulently pro- and anti-Trump factions over the past seven years. This ever-deepening partisan animosity is the most potent threat to our democracy, exceeding even the dangerous efforts by Trump and his allies to undermine our election process. Anything that exacerbates those tensions pushes us one step closer to a permanent political divide, where all dissent is viewed by the other side as disloyal.


The FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago was a legal proceeding, but it was also a political act. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s decision to authorize the raid infuriated tens of millions of people — and excited an equal number who have long wanted their bête noire thrown in jail. Regardless of whether the FBI search uncovered potentially valuable evidence for a criminal investigation, these equal and opposite reactions are its primary social impact.

Image without a caption
Follow Henry Olsen's opinions
Follow
This fact means that it’s not appropriate for the judge to follow normal procedures in assessing how much of the affidavit to reveal. The more that is kept secret, the less public justification — and in politics, public knowledge is crucial for legitimacy — there is for the search. That lack of information helps fuel the attacks on the FBI, both verbal and physical, that further undermine our entire federal law enforcement system. Those consequences cannot be in the public interest.

Reinhart should also consider the impact on the nation if an investigation conducted largely in secret results in an indictment of Trump or someone close to him. Many Trump supporters already believe, with much justification, that there’s a “deep state” conspiracy to bring their hero down. Secrecy would feed political unrest that has societal effects that are more important to the nation’s well-being than the investigation itself.


The fact that “those with direct knowledge of the matter” often leak publicly unverifiable information to reporters further poisons the political well. These leaks are impossible to resist, but they also further foster public unrest, and not only among Trump’s supporters. Disclosure of the affidavit would provide concrete and specific information, beyond what “people familiar with the investigation” say to the news media, that the public could assess to determine for themselves if the search was justified.

These considerations mean that Reinhart should resist any temptation to release a heavily redacted affidavit. That result would be worse than if he released nothing at all. Conspiracy theorists would be quick to contend that the release was a sham intended to conceal the truth.

Removing the normal veil of secrecy that surrounds investigations would also send a powerful signal to leakers. Law enforcement officials, as well as attorneys on the defense side, with direct knowledge of an investigation could no longer presume their actions would be protected from disclosure. That should reduce the incentive to color information in an opaque effort to influence public opinion.


Upholding the rule of law means more than simply affirming that legal processes are followed. It also means ensuring that the laws are applied fairly. That consideration weighs heavily in favor of public disclosure.

The analogy many on the right are drawing between the investigation into former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private server to receive and send official emails is apt. In both cases it appears Trump and Clinton acted recklessly and selfishly in their treatment of sensitive information, but in neither case is it conclusive that actual harm resulted to U.S. security. The investigation of Trump may yet uncover proof of such harm, but if Trump were to be indicted after a secret investigation without such proof while Clinton was let off, Trump backers would conclude that the fix was in. That would not be in the public’s interest.

Like it or not, Trump’s political fate is what’s at issue in this investigation. That fate will ultimately be decided in the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Judge Reinhart should recognize that fact now and act to inform the court whose judgment will ultimately settle the real case at issue.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/400609.php

Deep State Andy says "Don't criticize my deep state buddies or they'll just make it worse for you"!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Rivkin & Casey: Trump Warrant had no legal basis
« Reply #1404 on: August 23, 2022, 03:28:40 PM »
Rivkin & Casey are serious heavyweight attorneys.
=================================

The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis
A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Aug. 22, 2022 12:51 pm ET


Outside Mar-a-Lago the day after the raid.

PHOTO: JOE CAVARETTA/ZUMA PRESS

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added). These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA dramatically changed the rules regarding ownership and treatment of presidential documents. Presidents from George Washington through Jimmy Carter treated their White House papers as their personal property, and neither Congress nor the courts disputed that. In Nixon v. U.S. (1992), the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that Richard Nixon had a right to compensation for his presidential papers, which the government had retained under the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (which applied only to him). “Custom and usage evidences the kind of mutually explicit understandings that are encompassed within the constitutional notion of ‘property’ protected by the Fifth Amendment,” the judges declared.

The PRA became effective in 1981, at the start of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. It established a unique statutory scheme, balancing the needs of the government, former presidents and history. The law declares presidential records to be public property and provides that “the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records.”

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access. Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

ADVERTISEMENT - SCROLL TO CONTINUE

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself. PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based. Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.

ADVERTISEMENT - SCROLL TO CONTINUE

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access.

The government obviously has an important interest in how classified materials are kept, whether or not they are presidential records. In this case, it appears that the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room. If that was insufficient, and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access. Surely that’s what the government would have done if any other former president were involved.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: Sacrificial lamb or scapegoat?
« Reply #1408 on: August 30, 2022, 09:07:02 AM »
Oh, the FBI has seen the light! No more corruption! The bad guy responsible will be forced to retire and sign a contract as an MSNBC commentator for 350,000 a year.

Justice has been served!



https://nypost.com/2022/08/29/fbi-agent-resigns-amid-hunter-biden-probe-scrutiny/?fbclid=IwAR1aHFqowvQ4lY5bqkXebXQFPEpwD5G93rFM3IsjxyFKhruIuS30S9fHVQg

=======================================

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6311516750112?fbclid=IwAR3DAQtSJwW8Yr3Thut0mYvUz-HWV_lON9ykbPxV9CqURytuHrP6tWy1fB4#sp=show-clips

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
PP: Garland
« Reply #1414 on: August 31, 2022, 10:42:21 AM »
AG Garland seeks to intimidate FBI whistleblowers: On Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a new policy to Justice Department personnel forbidding them from communicating with "Senators, Representatives, congressional committees, or congressional staff without advance coordination, consultation, and approval" by the Office of Legislative Affairs. Garland claimed his motive for issuing the new policy directives was to prevent the DOJ's actions from having "the appearance of political influence." While that does sound good on paper, the proof is in the pudding. The range of targets for the Garland-led DOJ too often smacks of blatant political bias, a fact borne out by a growing number of FBI whistleblowers making claims of political bias among leadership in the agency. Garland's directive appears to be designed to tamp down on more potential whistleblowers contacting members of Congress, even as he seeks to claim otherwise. Garland has repeatedly demonstrated that honesty is not his forte.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: PP: Garland
« Reply #1415 on: August 31, 2022, 10:48:02 AM »
Utterly corrupt. This isn't a misunderstanding or a difference of opinions. This is blatant, in your face corruption.


AG Garland seeks to intimidate FBI whistleblowers: On Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a new policy to Justice Department personnel forbidding them from communicating with "Senators, Representatives, congressional committees, or congressional staff without advance coordination, consultation, and approval" by the Office of Legislative Affairs. Garland claimed his motive for issuing the new policy directives was to prevent the DOJ's actions from having "the appearance of political influence." While that does sound good on paper, the proof is in the pudding. The range of targets for the Garland-led DOJ too often smacks of blatant political bias, a fact borne out by a growing number of FBI whistleblowers making claims of political bias among leadership in the agency. Garland's directive appears to be designed to tamp down on more potential whistleblowers contacting members of Congress, even as he seeks to claim otherwise. Garland has repeatedly demonstrated that honesty is not his forte.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
PP: The Problem is deeper than the FBI
« Reply #1416 on: August 31, 2022, 12:41:16 PM »

It's Not an 'FBI Problem'
"Protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States."

Mark Alexander
"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the 'latent spark'... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" —John Adams (1775)

The Department of Justice — and more specifically its domestic law enforcement, intelligence, and security service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation — has been taking some well-earned criticism over the last six years for fabricating a politically motivated investigation, starting with a deceitful FISA warrant, to target Donald Trump.

But the politicization of the FBI, tasking the bureau with investigations that fit high-profile political objectives, is not a recent phenomenon. In fact, it dates back to its inception.

Today's FBI is a massive bureaucracy, with a $10.7 billion budget, most of which is used to pay its 37,000 employees, including more than 13,000 special agents who form the tip of the FBI's enforcement spear.

Founded in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation, its initial mission was to enforce the Mann Act prohibition on interstate trafficking of prostitutes. The BOI mission significantly expanded by 1933, when it was linked to the Bureau of Prohibition and its focus was expanded to prosecuting notorious bootleggers and gangsters. That same year it would be renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The fusion of politics and law enforcement originates with the FBI's longest-serving director, J. Edgar Hoover. He commanded the organization for nearly half a century — from its BOI days in 1924 until his retirement in 1972. The bureau took on its national security functions at the onset of World War II and its powers — which is to say, Hoover's powers — greatly expanded through the end of his tenure.

Hoover is perhaps most remembered for keeping tabs and taps on John F. Kennedy and his administrative nemesis, JFK's brother Robert, who was also our nation's attorney general. In the mid-1960s, Hoover turned his focus to Martin Luther King and the communist connections of some civil rights leaders. But many of those investigations exceeded FBI authority and were clearly used to discredit King and others.

From 1945 until Hoover's retirement, presidents and politicians dared not cross him because it was assumed that he maintained dossiers on their dalliances and other dastardly deeds. Today, the FBI's 56 field offices report to the bureau's DC headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue — in the J. Edgar Hoover building.

For two decades after Hoover's era, the FBI became more specialized and more professional, developing designated units involved in high-profile criminal and terrorist investigations.

But the organization's shine was badly tarnished by its excessive (to put it kindly) actions during the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the 1993 siege at Waco, Texas, the latter being two months after the bureau failed to detect and thwart the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center's North Tower. The bureau's mishandling of the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, including the leaking of information leading to the public vilification of the wrong person, Richard Jewell, was another deep wound to its reputation.

The actual Centennial Park Olympic bomber was a sociopath named Eric Rudolph, identified in 1998 as the suspect in several bombings including those of two abortion clinics. For that reason, over the next two years, Rudolph became the subject of one of the largest manhunts in U.S. history involving massive federal manpower and resources. He was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list and had a $1 million bounty on his head.

Then-President Bill Clinton had the FBI focused on a high-profile criminal and political target at the same time al-Qa'ida terrorists were settling into U.S. suburbs and preparing to carry out their devastating 9/11 Islamist attack on our nation. Clinton had already declined numerous opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden before the attack.

In its findings, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report blamed both the FBI and CIA for failing to follow leads regarding the terrorist plotters, noting our country had "not been well served" by either agency. In fact, Stanford University Fellow Amy Zegart documented 23 investigative leads the FBI failed to follow, any one of which may have led to the disruption of the 9/11 attack. For the record, Eric Rudolph surrendered to local police in Murphy, North Carolina, 18 months after 9/11.

In the years after 9/11, the FBI's leadership resisted the changes recommended by the 9/11 Commission and missed other investigative leads including those regarding mass assailants at schools.

There have been other notable failures.

In 2016, as former FBI Director James Comey and his corrupt FBI cadre were laying the groundwork to set up the Trump "investigation," the bureau failed to follow up on a tip-off regarding Islamist Omar Saddiqui Mateen before he murdered 49 people in Orlando.

All that being said, there are three key points that beg a pardon.

First, in all the years since the FBI's formation, despite some significant failures, special agents have made countless thousands of arrests thwarting terrorist plans and taking the most dangerous criminals off the streets — often due to truly brilliant investigative work and at great risk to the agents making those arrests.

Second, regarding failures to detect terrorist events, particularly the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks, hindsight is 20/20. OK, actually hindsight is rarely 20/20, but in serious retrospect, it is much easier to look back and see what was missed than it is to detect something in real time. And too often there is a significant bias when reports emerge on past failures — a bias holding that clues and leads at the time should have made intervention more achievable than in fact it was.

And third, the FBI agents I have known and worked with over the past 35 years have been professional men and women of impeccable character, devoted to their oath "to support and defend" our Constitution. Every agent I know today fits that profile and is singularly devoted to the FBI motto: Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.

The FBI's stated mission is to "protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States," and that is precisely what most FBI agents endeavor to do every day.

Unfortunately, as a result of corruption on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building, morale among agents is at an all-time low.

Thus, I exercise caution when criticizing "the FBI" to make the distinction between the vast majority of special agents who make up the FBI and the corrupt elements within the FBI.

The problem is not the FBI.

The problem is a profoundly arrogant and lawless cadre of deep state bureaucrats within the bureau, and a slice of dependable minions below them, who have lost their moral compass and their willingness to abide by their oaths. Instead, they obediently and cleverly do the bidding of their Democrat Party masters, knowing full well how to keep their fingerprints off the crime scene.


At no time since 9/11 has the FBI's reputation been so deeply soiled than it has been over the last six years.

As I have thoroughly detailed, the corruption of the FBI and CIA under former directors James Comey and John Brennan, respectively, in collaboration with Hillary Clinton and using her layup for the "Russia collusion" conspiracy as "probable cause" to take down the presidency of Donald Trump — a political charade that was ultimately found baseless — was unprecedented in U.S. history.

And we now know as a matter of fact that the FBI ran interference for Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election by suppressing information from Hunter Biden connecting his father to a ChiCom pay-to-play scheme.

And it appears now that the understudy of the demonstrably corrupt Barack Obama is resurrecting another DOJ/FBI deep state cabal to convict Trump for Hillary Clinton's crimes.

The latest iteration is modeled after the last one created by Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI Counterintelligence Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok.

It is no coincidence that the FBI unit leading the Mar-a-Lago investigation also ran the Trump-Russia investigation.

Will they succeed with Trump with the objective of demoralizing his supporters ahead of the midterm elections?

Maybe, but there are some cracks in the cabal's armor.

A growing chorus of FBI whistleblowers is starting to shed light on political corruption at the highest levels of the bureau. It is likely no coincidence that FBI ASAC Timothy Thibault, a senior agent at the center of what can only be described as politically motivated investigations and non-investigations (such as the Russia collusion hoax and the Hunter Biden non-hoax), has decide to "retire," much as some co-conspirators in Comey's cadre also "retired."

More will follow, especially if a Republican-led House majority opens investigations next January.

In the meantime, we should all take care to distinguish between "the FBI" as the corpus of thousands of good agents and the cadre of corrupt deep state bureaucrats within and atop the FBI.

To that end, the latest Rasmussen survey reports that a majority of likely voters agree that "there is a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI that are using the FBI as Joe Biden's personal Gestapo."

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
WT: Sen. Grassley letter to AG Garland
« Reply #1421 on: September 05, 2022, 08:35:19 AM »
Grassley warns Garland in letter to back off from FBI whistleblowers

BY KERRY PICKET THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. Chuck Grassley turned up the heat on Attorney General Merrick Garland for prohibiting Justice Department employees from communicating with members of Congress amid a flood of FBI whistleblower complaints to lawmakers.

Mr. Grassley said that the attorney general’s edict, sent to DOJ workers in an Aug. 30 memo, threatened to “chill and undermine the importance of whistleblower protections.”

“Under your leadership, the Department and FBI have failed to be responsive to congressional oversight requests. Accordingly, it is often only because of whistleblowers that Congress and the American people are apprised of the type of wrongdoing that your memo seeks to protect against,” Mr. Grassley wrote last week in a letter to Mr. Garland.

“As you are aware, the Department and FBI have a reputation for retaliating against whistleblowers that provide information to Congress,” he wrote. “Accordingly, I’d like to remind the Department that, as a basic matter of law, all employees of the U.S. Government have a right to petition Congress or furnish information to Congress.”

The Times reached out to the Justice Department for a response but did not hear back.

The sharp words added to mounting tension between Republican lawmakers and Mr. Garland, whose Justice Department has been accused of anti-conservative bias and launching politically motivated investigations including the unprecedented FBI search on former President Donald Trump’s home in Florida.

FBI whistleblowers recently revealed that bureau officials sabotaged an investigation of Hunter Biden’s business dealings and tax affairs by labeling verified evidence as “disinformation.” Those efforts coincided with Hunter Biden’s father, President Biden, campaigning for the White House in 2020.

What’s more, the Washington Times has reported that scores of FBI whistleblowers have come forward about widespread misconduct and mismanagement at the bureau’s field offices across the country.

Mr. Grassley, an Iowa Republican and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, is known for championing whistleblower protection laws, specifically the FBI Whistleblower Enhancement Protection Act.

Mr. Garland’s memo ordered DOJ employees to cease communicating with members of Congress and their staff. It said that all communication with Congress must be conducted through the department’s office of legislative affairs.

The policy is “to protect our criminal and civil law enforcement decisions, and our legal judgment from partisans or other inappropriate influences, whether real or perceived or indirect,” Mr. Garland said in the memo.

He added that the new policies “are not intended to conflict with or limit whistleblower protections” and that “Congress may carry out its legislative oversight functions.”

Mr. Grassley, in his letter to Mr. Garland, said, “Even with your whistleblower caveats, and due to the timing of your memo, I remain concerned about the chilling effect it may have on whistleblowers who wish to approach Congress with information relating to fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
The FBI has become the KGB
« Reply #1422 on: September 06, 2022, 12:41:43 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
From Matt Bracken
« Reply #1425 on: September 10, 2022, 07:45:49 AM »
From Matt Bracken:

I happen to agree 100% with MM.
And Republican normies still think we can turn this all around with a "red wave" in November...
Even if it happens, that we "beat the cheat," what will actually change? The slim majority GOP in Congress will hold "hearings."

And FBI and DOJ honchos will laugh in their faces, give them the middle finger, and then the next day have their cell phones seized on the street by FBI Gestapo goons, and the homes of their aides raided just to teach them, finally, who is the real, permanent boss.

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/115/507/973/original/b9256dc7992093d6.jpg



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Judicial Watch, IRS Scandal continued
« Reply #1426 on: September 13, 2022, 12:52:28 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: Judicial Watch, IRS Scandal continued
« Reply #1427 on: September 13, 2022, 12:59:42 PM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14799
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1429 on: September 13, 2022, 02:47:03 PM »
**The Obama IRS scandal serves as a warning – that keeping a watch on our government is essential – as those in power are always willing to abuse government power for political ends.**

 problem :

who is watching the watchers ?

The MSM
who is in cahoots with one party .

thanks to Fitton et al (and the FOIA) or we would be even more in the dark about the deep state

not clear to me is how much the FOIA is working vs insider cover ups , etc at countering it.





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1430 on: September 13, 2022, 03:26:15 PM »
Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch are awesome and receive my financial support.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Watch the Tucker segment embedded in the post
« Reply #1431 on: September 13, 2022, 04:14:46 PM »
« Last Edit: September 14, 2022, 02:05:24 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Then they came for the My Pillow Guy and I said nothing...
« Reply #1432 on: September 13, 2022, 09:27:45 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1433 on: September 14, 2022, 02:10:47 AM »
My read on this wave of warrants, phone seizures, raids, etc based on J6 claims is that it is to intimidate those who would think to contest skullduggery in this coming election.   

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16131
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1434 on: September 14, 2022, 03:43:04 AM »
My read on this wave of warrants, phone seizures, raids, etc based on J6 claims is that it is to intimidate those who would think to contest skullduggery in this coming election.

How do we fight back against that?  And maybe the answer to that shouldn't go through the internet.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1435 on: September 14, 2022, 03:47:43 AM »
In which case they have succeeded in their intimidation.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14799
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1437 on: September 14, 2022, 10:35:33 AM »
"Because I hate those fcuking commercials!"

well the commercials are enough reason to throw him in jail.  :?

he is now the "MY COFFEE " guy

next it will the my condom guy.....

I mean :

" the most delicious sweetest coffee you ever had -> GUARANTEED"

come on

what a jerk



« Last Edit: September 14, 2022, 10:38:35 AM by ccp »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14799
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1439 on: September 14, 2022, 02:33:47 PM »
well of course I agree
that being a jerk
and forcing conservatives to sit through endless insufferable commercials

"this is the lower price ever"

"while supply lasts"

with the same stuff at the same prices for yrs......

*does not excuse the FBI

abuse of power.......*


yet, if he was sent to solitary without a microphone ....

I would not weep .



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
WSJ: How Mueller shredded the FBI's credibility
« Reply #1440 on: September 15, 2022, 08:40:55 AM »
How Robert Mueller Shredded the FBI’s Credibility
His post-9/11 attempts to change the culture led to politicized investigations like Crossfire Hurricane.
By Thomas J. Baker
Sept. 14, 2022 2:44 pm ET

Four days after 9/11, Robert Mueller was summoned to the presidential retreat at Camp David. It was little more than a week since he’d become director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

That Saturday morning, Mr. Mueller gave President George W. Bush the FBI’s initial report on the attacks. The Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing Investigation, or Penttbom, would become the largest ever conducted by the FBI. It had already identified the 19 hijackers as well as their roles, nationalities, travel documents and histories. The focus had turned to establishing links between the hijackers and al Qaeda.

Mr. Bush, wearing a leather bomber jacket, sat at the head of a big square conference table in the rustic oak cabin. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, was at the president’s right. Mr. Mueller, as he later acknowledged, was confident in the report. The FBI had done what it does best—investigate.

Expecting praise or thanks, Mr. Mueller was taken aback when the president interrupted him. “Bob, I expect the FBI to determine who was responsible for the attacks and to help bring them to justice,” he said. “What I want to know from you—today—is what the FBI is doing to prevent the next attack.” That same morning Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet presented a proposed plan of action. At the conclusion of Mr. Tenet’s presentation, Mr. Bush exclaimed, “That’s great.” He turned toward Mr. Mueller and said, “That’s what I want to hear.” Mr. Mueller told me later that he felt humiliated.

After his experience at Camp David, for reasons that might have seemed justified at the time, Mr. Mueller resolutely set about to change the “culture” of the FBI. That’s the word he used. He was going to make the bureau into an intelligence agency, or in his repeated terminology, an “intelligence driven” organization. Unintended consequences followed. The organization I had served for 33 years would undergo a cultural change in subsequent years, culminating in the ugly disaster of Crossfire Hurricane, the fruitless but disruptive investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia.

As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Mueller had worked with FBI special agents in Boston and San Francisco, but he didn’t know the FBI’s culture or how it functioned. He also displayed disdain for the special agents in charge of each of the FBI’s 50-plus field offices.

Mr. Mueller didn’t understand the FBI’s office-of-origin system, which has been in use for nearly a century. On a typical case, an office of origin would run things, sending out leads to other field offices who’d track them down and report back. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, the logical office of origin would have been the New York or Washington field office. Both had experienced international squads. New York had the investigative capacity, it was near Ground Zero, and up to then had been the office of origin for the entire al Qaeda case.


But Mr. Mueller wanted centralization. He wanted all information to run through FBI headquarters, which would make all the decisions. Mr. Mueller’s predecessor, Louis Freeh, who started his career as a field agent, strongly believed in empowering the field offices. Not Mr. Mueller, who accelerated centralization; he also believed special agents in charge presided over their territories like dukes. His words.

Penttbom would thus become the first case in FBI history run from headquarters. It set a bad precedent, which would yield poisonous fruit in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and then in the Russian collusion fiasco, when a small clique at headquarters called all the shots.

Mr. Mueller made other moves to change the FBI’s culture, which had negative consequences. Replacing agent executives, he brought in outside professionals to take over key headquarters positions—perhaps enhancing short-term technical proficiency in those positions but losing long-term commitment and an invaluable knowledge of the institution and its culture. The outsiders didn’t have the institutional knowledge of career agents.

During the directorships of Mr. Mueller and his successor, James Comey, nonagents ran the FBI’s public-affairs and congressional-affairs offices and served as its general counsel. These are precisely the positions in which the ugliness of Crossfire Hurricane and its aftermath eventually manifested itself. As the trial of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann demonstrated, FBI General Counsel James Baker, a nonagent, accepted misdirection from Mr. Sussmann, causing the bureau to chase the fabricated Alfa Bank connection. A special agent would have known better how to interview Mr. Sussmann.

The change in FBI culture initiated by Mr. Mueller after his September 2001 experience with Mr. Bush led directly to today’s problematic FBI. Director Christopher Wray, or his successor, must turn the FBI back into a “swear to tell the truth” law enforcement agency.

Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attaché and author of “The Fall of the FBI: How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy,” forthcoming in December.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile
Danchencko CHS status used to hide the conspiracy
« Reply #1442 on: September 20, 2022, 02:15:38 AM »
FBI Put Key Dossier Source on Payroll in Apparent Effort to Conceal Dossier Fabrications
Hans Mahncke
Hans Mahncke
 September 14, 2022 Updated: September 19, 2022biggersmaller Print

0:00
11:58



1

Commentary

Special counsel John Durham filed a pre-trial motion in limine on Sept. 13 in his false statements case against Igor Danchenko, the primary sub-source of Christopher Steele’s dossier on former President Donald Trump. Danchenko, who is charged with five counts of lying to the FBI about his sources for the dossier, had earlier filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him.

Epoch Times PhotoMotions in limine are routine motions that are used to determine what evidence may and may not be used at trial. Danchenko’s trial is scheduled to begin next month.

However, Durham’s motion is anything but routine and contains a series of stunning revelations about Danchenko.

Perhaps the most stunning disclosure is that Danchenko was given confidential human source (CHS) status by the FBI in March 2017. Notably, this was after Danchenko had disowned the Steele dossier in a January 2017 FBI interview, having admitted that it was based on gossip and rumors. Given the admission, there was no legitimate reason to extend the protections of CHS status to Danchenko, who no longer had any bona fide value to the FBI’s investigation into alleged Trump–Russia collusion.

In fact, the FBI’s investigation ought to have ended as soon as Danchenko disclosed the true provenance of Steele’s reporting.

The FBI’s goal in giving Danchenko the highly coveted CHS status appears to have been to take Danchenko off the grid. As a CHS, Danchenko enjoyed special protections and privileges. Crucially, the FBI was able to use his status to conceal Danchenko and his disclosures from congressional inquiries, such as the investigation by then-Rep. Devin Nunes led by Kash Patel. Other inquiries, such as Freedom of Information Act requests, could similarly be stonewalled by reference to the “sources and methods” justification for concealing the identity, and even the existence, of a CHS.

The FBI had huge incentives to hide Danchenko. Although Danchenko told the FBI several lies in what Durham now describes was an attempt to reconcile what Danchenko had told Steele, the overarching message from Danchenko was that the dossier was untrue. This effectively ended any legitimate inquiry into Trump–Russia collusion. Danchenko’s disavowal also meant that the FBI’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—which were issued based on the Steele dossier—were effectively invalidated.

The FBI had a legal duty to inform the FISA court about Danchenko but failed to do so. In fact, they successfully applied for two further FISA warrants against Page on the basis of the Steele dossier which they knew to be false.

The timing of Danchenko’s elevation to CHS status coincided with two major developments. First, on March 20, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey told Congress that the Trump campaign was under investigation for alleged ties to Russia. At the time, Comey knew that Danchenko had shredded the investigation’s predicate, yet he chose to forge on regardless. Second, also in March 2017, Nunes found out from a whistleblower in the intelligence community that the Trump transition team had been spied on. Nunes complained that Congress hadn’t been given that information.

As head of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes immediately ratcheted up his own investigation into the Trump–Russia matter. That investigation would lead to the Nunes memo in February 2018. However, the Nunes memo made no mention of Danchenko or of the fact that he had disavowed the dossier. After the FBI put Danchenko on their CHS payroll, he was completely off the grid and any information about him was withheld from Congress under the “sources and methods” justification.

The FBI’s apparent scheme to bury Danchenko seems to have worked as planned. Neither Nunes nor anyone else knew about Danchenko or his disavowal of the Steele dossier until December 2019, when Justice Department (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his report on the FBI’s FISA abuses. Horowitz didn’t disclose Danchenko’s name and provided very little information other than that Steele had a primary sub-source whose story differed from the one told by Steele himself.

It wasn’t until July 2020 that a group of online sleuths, including myself, were able to extrapolate Danchenko’s name from various data points in Horowitz’s report, as well as from heavily redacted interview notes published by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

With the identification of Danchenko, any remaining credibility of the Steele dossier collapsed. Contrary to the FBI’s claims, Danchenko wasn’t a Russian-based source with access to Kremlin insiders. Instead, he was a Beltway insider who had spent a number of years working at the Democratic-leaning Brookings Institution, where anti-Trump impeachment witness Fiona Hill was his mentor.

Yet, the FBI continued to pay Danchenko, as well as maintain his CHS status, until October 2020. By then, Durham had already been investigating the origins of the Trump–Russia probe for 19 months. It also isn’t known when Durham found out about Danchenko’s CHS status. It’s likely that Danchenko’s CHS status was revoked after then-Attorney General William Barr disclosed in September 2020 that Danchenko had been suspected of working for Russian intelligence.

That fact was known to the FBI since 2009, but Barr’s public disclosure may have forced the bureau’s hand.

It appears that the sole purpose of making Danchenko a CHS was to conceal FBI malfeasance from Congress, from the FISA court, and from the public; that opens up new avenues for Durham to criminally pursue FBI officials. These officials include former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former head of counterespionage Peter Strzok, and Danchenko case agent Brian Auten.

It was thought that the statute of limitations for bringing charges against FBI officials had lapsed earlier this year, when five years had passed from the time the officials took their respective actions. However, it now appears as if the time limit has been extended because the FBI continued employing Danchenko under false pretenses until October 2020. That gives Durham plenty of time to pursue FBI officials, if he’s so inclined.

Aside from the CHS revelations, Durham’s new motion also sheds light on the above-mentioned incident in which Barr disclosed that, while Danchenko was employed by the Brookings Institution, he allegedly had approached two fellow employees and told them that if they “had access to classified information,” and wanted “to make a little extra money,” he knew “some people to whom they could speak.”

Epoch Times Photo
Russian analyst Igor Danchenko is pursued by journalists as he departs the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse after being arraigned on Nov. 10, 2021, in Alexandria, Virginia. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
After the incident was reported to law enforcement in 2009, the FBI opened a “full investigation” into Danchenko after learning that he “(1) had been identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects and (2) had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.”

Until Sept. 13, the status of that investigation remained unknown. Durham now has revealed that the FBI closed the investigation into Danchenko in 2010 because it “incorrectly believed” that he had left the country.

It isn’t known whether Durham believes the FBI’s threadbare explanation. It’s noteworthy that Durham hasn’t charged Danchenko with lying about his contacts with Russian intelligence officers. During his January 2017 FBI interview, Danchenko claimed not to know or have met with any such officers.

It’s also notable that Durham hasn’t charged Danchenko with lying about the infamous “pee tape” story. The dossier claims that the story originated in June 2016 from a senior Western employee at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow. However, Durham has now revealed that his office tracked down the only Western hotel employee at the time, a German national.

According to Durham, that German national will testify at Danchenko’s trial that he never met Danchenko and had never heard of the pee tape story until the media started reporting about the dossier in 2017.

Similar to the situation involving the Russian intelligence officers, it isn’t known why Durham hasn’t charged Danchenko specifically with lying about his supposed interactions with the German hotel manager. Given the massive interest that the pee tape story generated, it would have seemed to be a natural path to pursue, in particular since the hotel manager is able and willing to testify in court.

Epoch Times Photo
(L–R) Former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI Director James Comey; and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. (Getty Images/Illustration by Epoch Times)
The manager’s account is backed up by Charles Dolan, a political adviser with connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton. According to Durham, Dolan will testify at Danchenko’s trial that he and Danchenko had traveled to Moscow in June 2016 but that, unlike Dolan, Danchenko didn’t stay at the Ritz-Carlton and didn’t meet the German hotel manager. It appears that Danchenko made up the pee tape story from whole cloth, falsely attributing it to the German manager whom he never met.

While Danchenko is charged with lying about his interactions with Dolan, Durham is asking the court to also allow the hotel manager to testify as a means of demonstrating Danchenko’s “efforts to ​​fabricate and misattribute information reflected in the Steele Reports.”

In another stunning revelation, Durham has now disclosed that in February 2016, only a few months before his dossier work, Danchenko briefed the managing partner of a business intelligence firm on how to fabricate sources. According to Durham, Danchenko’s advice to the partner was that if there were no sources, one should “use oneself as a source” while obscuring this fact by citing others “to save the situation.”

Although Danchenko’s interactions with the business intelligence partner aren’t directly tied to the dossier or to Danchenko’s alleged lies to the FBI, Durham is asking the court to allow that information to be presented to the jury as a means of showing Danchenko’s modus operandi in fabricating sources.

While Durham’s latest revelations are extremely damning for Danchenko, they are far more damning for the FBI who appears to have perfidiously used the CHS mechanism to take Danchenko off the grid and bury the fact that he had disavowed the dossier. By doing so, FBI leadership deceived Congress, the courts, the DOJ’s inspector general, and the public. Worst of all, they did it in order to be able to continue with their efforts to take down then-President Trump.

While Danchenko’s chances of conviction have risen considerably with these latest revelations, Durham’s filing shows that the real prize is FBI leadership. Whether Danchenko is convicted is largely meaningless if FBI leadership isn’t held to account.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14799
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1444 on: September 22, 2022, 05:11:28 AM »
"He will be crushed by the FBI."

for sure

the Repubs better protect him like
dems do for their whistle suckers


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24013
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1445 on: September 22, 2022, 07:22:24 AM »
"He will be crushed by the FBI."

for sure

the Repubs better protect him like
dems do for their whistle suckers

They won't.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 60861
    • View Profile