Author Topic: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, Mar a Lago, Spermy Daniels etc  (Read 261581 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Gowdy, McCarthy
« Reply #704 on: June 04, 2018, 09:53:42 AM »
Gowdy:  "The fact that two people who were loosely connected to the Trump campaign may have been involved doesn’t diminish the fact that Russia was the target and not the campaign."

McCarthy:  "Gowdy is simply wrong when he says that the object here was to monitor the activities of a few tangential [people] that had kind of tenuous connections to the Trump campaign. It was said explicitly in congressional testimony a number of times by former Director Comey that the FBI was conducting an investigation of the Trump campaign for coordinating in Russia’s cyberespionage operation…”


Spy or informant?  McCarthy:  “The back and forth about whether it was a spy or an informant is beside the point….They’re government-controlled covert operatives who you send in to get information regardless of what you call them and the important thing always is why you sent them in, not what you call them…”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/the-spy-who-must-be-told.php

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Andrew McCarthy and David Limbaugh on Levin last night
« Reply #705 on: June 04, 2018, 09:58:54 AM »
In case you didn't see it this is part of it it appears:

http://www.foxnews.com/shows/life-liberty-levin.html

me:  "Great One!"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #706 on: June 04, 2018, 10:40:04 AM »
Watch Levin's Sunday show every week!

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #707 on: June 05, 2018, 04:18:22 AM »
What was the code name for the counterintelligence efforts directed at Papadopoulis and others before Crossfire Hurricane was commenced in June-July 2016?  Because, if there were no such counterintelligence investigation, then who tasked a humint operative onto George P and why?

Also, did you ever notice that the acronym for Halper's organization at Cambridge is CRASSH?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #708 on: June 05, 2018, 07:13:25 AM »
How did it happen that a CIA asset was used by the FBI?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
CRASSH
« Reply #709 on: June 05, 2018, 09:24:12 AM »
Hi Rick,

"Also, did you ever notice that the acronym for Halper's organization at Cambridge is CRASSH?"

What do make of this?


rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #710 on: June 05, 2018, 10:17:23 AM »
Could be crass with a lisp.  Or crash with 2 "s's".

Kinda reminds me of "The Oneders" in the movie "That Thing You Do."

Well maybe a CIA asset was used first and then the info "distributed" to the Bureau in order for the original CRASS(H) action to become obscured.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #713 on: June 09, 2018, 11:47:05 AM »
Unbelievable - the Director of Senate Intelligence -  passing all anti Trump information to his Mata Hari girlfriend who is almost young enough to be his daughter who conveniently uses him to scoop articles to POTH.   Of course she will conveniently hide behind freedom of press blah blah blah
and will go on to be a new icon of the Left Wing media .  She  will be up for a Pulitzer.
Bezos will probably pay for all her legal fees:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/james-wolfe-leak-investigation-journalists-double-standard/

This guy Wolfe certainly deserves to get the full 15 yrs but watch he will get 5 in minimum security hotel and be out in one ........

But good work and shout out to Jeff Sessions for getting tougher. Keep this up Jeff !  8-)



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The FBI's fractured fairytale
« Reply #714 on: June 10, 2018, 06:46:44 PM »
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/391566-the-fbis-fractured-fairytale

The FBI's fractured fairytale
By Sharyl Attkisson, opinion contributor — 06/10/18 03:10 PM EDT

 

Once upon a time, the FBI said some thugs planned to rob a bank in town. Thugs are always looking to rob banks. They try all the time. But at this particular time, the FBI was hyper-focused on potential bank robberies in this particular town.

The best way to prevent the robbery — which is the goal, after all — would be for the FBI to alert all the banks in town. “Be on high alert for suspicious activity,” the FBI could tell the banks. “Report anything suspicious to us. We don’t want you to get robbed.”

ADVERTISEMENT
Instead, in this fractured fairytale, the FBI followed an oddly less effective, more time-consuming, costlier approach. It focused on just one bank. And, strangely, it picked the bank that was least likely to be robbed because nobody thought it would ever get elected president — excuse me, I mean, because it had almost no cash on hand. (Why would robbers want to rob the bank with no cash?)

 

Stranger still, this specially-selected bank the FBI wanted to protect above all others happened to be owned by a man who was hated inside and outside the FBI.

So, to protect this bank owned by the guy the FBI hated, the FBI secretly examined a list of bank employees and identified a few it claimed would be likely to help robbers — or, at least, would not stop a robbery. How did it select these targets? By profiling them based on their pasts.

These particular bank employees, the FBI said, were chosen because they worked long ago with customers who might have known bank robbers in the past — maybe not the particular robbers planning a bank robbery this time, but different people who knew people who were thought to have robbed banks in the past ... or, perhaps, people who thought of robbing banks at some point but never got around to it.

So the FBI decided these particular bank employees, who may have known or met with suspicious people in the past, might be capable of committing a future crime.

Mind you, these targeted bank employees had never served time in prison, never been convicted of anything, never even been charged with a crime. If the FBI had just gone to them and said, “Hey, we think some people are going to rob this bank and we’ve got our eye on you, too,” the bank robbery probably would be avoided. Everybody would be watching out for the robbers.

Instead, the FBI secretly sent at least one spy — er, “informant” — to commingle with the bank employees and get info. Yes, you are thinking, it would seem to make a lot more sense to spy on the would-be robbers than their intended victims. But the FBI chose to spy on the victims. You know, for their own good.

At least one of the FBI informants/spies met with the targeted bank employees, pretending to be interested in them, and asked questions like “If you could have a million dollars tomorrow, what would you buy?” and “Would the owner of this bank be happy for you if you came across a sudden inheritance?” The FBI informant/spy then reported back to FBI headquarters that the bank employees were clearly thinking about robbing the bank, and that the owner of the bank was part of the scheme.

Next, because the FBI claimed these employees were clearly acting suspiciously and had criminal minds, the FBI unleashed the most intrusive, sensitive intel tools on them, tools that are rarely to be used against U.S. citizens — surveillance and wiretapping. FBI officials also leaked information about their investigation to the local press — not information that disparaged the robbers so much as cast suspicion on the bank’s owner and employees. In fact, it almost seemed like the FBI had forgotten all about the robbers.

And so, while all this was going on, the robbers robbed the bank.

Despite all the media innuendo, the secret surveillance and the spies/informants, the FBI said the robbers made off with a lot of cash. Even though the bank didn’t have much cash.

Afterward, the FBI stepped up its investigation of the bank employees. It couldn’t find solid proof the employees had anything to do with any bank robbery but claimed they were present a couple of times when the robbers cased the joint, so they must have known a robbery was going to happen. The owner must have known, too, the FBI concluded.

After digging deeply into the bank employees’ background, the FBI found other things: One bank employee hadn’t paid proper taxes six years before; another had been briefly accused of embezzling from a previous employer years ago but was never charged; a third said things in an FBI interview that the FBI concluded were untrue. The FBI charged them all with crimes and pressured them to become witnesses — not against the robbers, but against the bank owner.

In the end, the FBI held out hope that the townsfolk wouldn’t focus on the idea that all the FBI’s hard work and planning to supposedly protect the town’s banks only resulted in the utter failure of its stated mission: The bank got robbed, the cash would never be recovered, and the robbers would never serve time. Yet, some of the bank employees might — not for the robbery but for that other stuff.

The moral of the story: It’s a weird way to prevent a bank robbery.

On the other hand, if the FBI’s real goal — in this fractured fairytale — was to frame the hated owner of the bank and his employees, it all makes sense.

Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of the New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program, “Full Measure.”


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #715 on: June 11, 2018, 04:44:03 AM »
Good analogy
Bank robbers were not the target.
Target was bank president all along.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: The FBI's fractured fairytale
« Reply #716 on: June 11, 2018, 08:13:44 AM »
Yes.  She is a great journalist and this is a phenomenal column and analogy. 

As I read and listen to those trying to follow the details of these current scandals, like during Whitewater, I can't keep all the names and misdeeds straight.  Once the public is lost on it, they don't want to hear any more details.  At some point, the story of what happened needs to be simplified and Attkisson does that beautifully here for at least this part of it.

From the column:  "moral of the story: It’s a weird way to prevent a bank robbery"

They weren't trying to prevent Russian cyberwar.  They were trying to frame the President and anyone close to him.

The one or two things we all knew from "Independent" Counsels:
1. Define their mission very, very specifically and don't stray from it.
   - And then Rosenstein said 'and any crimes that come out of wherever the undefined investigation may lead.'
2. Make the credentials of these unchecked investigators beyond reproach.
   - And then Mueller started his hiring right off of Hillary's contributor list.
What could possibly go wrong?

As Mark Steyn has been saying for over a year, what we're missing in the Russian collusion case is - a Russian.

Deplorable lack of curiosity:  FBI and Hillary and Cheryl Mills sat down a few minutes to have tea in Chappaqua in pajamas on the morning of 4th of July not under oath, discuss nothing to do with motive, conclude there was no intent on a crime where intent is irrelevant and call it completion of an investigation, then release the letter of exoneration they drafted months earlier.  Do you have to be far right wing in your politics to smell a rat?  Or is the whole, real conspiracy hiding in plain sight?

In the end, if justice gets fully served, there could be more jailed investigators than guilty Russians.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
huff post : IG proves Comey hurt Clinton not Trump
« Reply #720 on: June 14, 2018, 05:15:35 PM »
This is after Comey and other officials, DOJ and Obama refused to enforce the law against Hillary who should behind bars not running for Prresident.

Is there no mention of Comey and Lynches handling of letting off the hook scot free?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: huff post : IG proves Comey hurt Clinton not Trump
« Reply #721 on: June 14, 2018, 07:30:20 PM »
This is after Comey and other officials, DOJ and Obama refused to enforce the law against Hillary who should behind bars not running for Prresident.

Is there no mention of Comey and Lynches handling of letting off the hook scot free?

Epic corruption in the DOJ/FBI being exposed and this is their spin.

Amazing.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: huff post : IG proves Comey hurt Clinton not Trump
« Reply #722 on: June 15, 2018, 06:14:52 AM »
This is after Comey and other officials, DOJ and Obama refused to enforce the law against Hillary who should behind bars not running for Prresident.

Is there no mention of Comey and Lynches handling of letting off the hook scot free?

Epic corruption in the DOJ/FBI being exposed and this is their spin.
Amazing.

The facts, not Comey, hurt Hillary more than Trump. 

The Dem argument is that Comey should have done more to hide the facts.  Call them out on that.

I learned while reading the very first global warming report that headlines and conclusions can be written with an agenda not supported in the data.  In Comey's famous press conference, he laid out the details of the crimes she committed, then changed the conclusion from criminal gross negligence to extreme carelessness enabling the accused and her 97% of the press could run with the story that their client was "exonerated".

Anyone who covolutes the convoluted conclusion, "Political bias did not affect Clinton probe, watchdog report finds", is simply unable or unwilling to read and comprehend the report.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/political-bias-did-not-affect-clinton-probe-watchdog-report-finds
That isn't what it said.  But it will be repeated.

If former Director James Comey had left the correct words 'Gross Negligence' in the report and stopped there instead of making a decision that was not his to make, not to prosecute, and real justice had followed up with no regard to political power and political timing, Hillary would have been headed into the election under indictment and facing trial.  Democrats would have replaced her and Bernie or Biden had a fair chance to win with a candidate with no connection to her misdeeds.

The bias and criminal mishandling of these two cases is proven in the facts sections of the report.  Look it up and lock them up.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Justice Department IG Reveals FBI Corruption
« Reply #723 on: June 15, 2018, 06:18:40 AM »
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/justice-department-ig-reveals-fbi-corruption/

Justice Department IG Reveals FBI Corruption
Senior FBI agent threatened to prevent Trump election in text message; agents took gifts from reporters

BY: Bill Gertz     
June 14, 2018 5:02 pm

The FBI mishandled the politically charged investigation of classified information found on Hillary Clinton's private email server, and Bureau agents engaged in improper behavior including a text message threat to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president, according to a Justice Department inspector general probe.

A report by Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, however, appeared to let the FBI off the hook for allowing political biases and concerns about protecting the FBI's reputation influence its investigation of classified data found on the email server.

Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump, came in for blistering criticism in the IG report for not informing Justice Department superiors about his decision in July 2016 to publicly exonerate Clinton in the probe—three weeks before she was named the Democratic presidential nominee.

Comey and the FBI were also was criticized in the report for delaying and then re-opening the email investigation days before the November 2016 election after tens of thousands of new emails were found after the probe had been closed in July.

The IG found "no evidence" Comey's July 2016 statement ending what the report called the FBI's "Midyear" probe of classified information found in the Clinton emails was the result of political bias or "an effort to influence the election."

"We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct," the report said.

"We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the attorney general, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of department prosecutors."

Comey announced July 5, 2016, that he was recommending against prosecuting Clinton based on a lack of illegal intention and asserting that no reasonable attorney would prosecute her for the security breaches.

The FBI also failed to act quickly in responding to the discovery of emails between Clinton and key aide Huma Abedin found two months later on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, Abedin's husband, as part of an investigation of Weiner sexting with a minor.

The delays created the perception that the FBI was slow-rolling a decision to reopen the email probe.

Comey told investigators when he learned of the Weiner laptop emails he did not know Weiner was Abedin's husband and failed to grasp the significance of the new evidence.

Clinton place both "secret" and "top secret" information on emails found on the private server used while she was secretary of state to avoid triggering official records preservation rules.

The FBI declined to charge her for the mishandling of classified information because classification markings had been removed from the information in the emails, the report said.

The 568-page IG report, "A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election" contains details of several FBI and Justice Department scandals that emerged since the 2016 election.

The report reveals that:

Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch acted improperly in not cutting short a meeting aboard an aircraft with former President Bill Clinton during the investigation of Hillary Clinton. Both Lynch and Bill Clinton denied discussing the ongoing email probe during the meeting.
The FBI improperly permitted two Clinton aides who were witnesses in the investigation to sit in on the FBI's questioning of Clinton
Comey drafted an initial statement exonerating Clinton months before the investigation ended.
The draft statement exonerating Clinton also removed the term "gross negligence"—a condition that could have been used for prosecution—and replaced with "especially concerning."
An initial assessment in the Comey draft statement saying foreign spy services were "reasonably likely" to have accessed the classified data on the Clinton server was replaced with "possible."
FBI ethics officials "did not fully appreciate" the potential conflict of interest by former FBI Director Andrew McCabe's wife receiving $675,288 in 2015 from Clinton associate Terry McAuliffe, then-governor of Virginia, for her political campaign for a state senate seat. McCabe became head of the email probe in early 2016.
The FBI improperly regarded a parallel investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump presidential campaign in 2016 to be more important the Clinton email probe.
 

The most damaging disclosures in the IG report relate to five FBI officials, including FBI counterintelligence official and Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok who was involved in both the email and Russia probes.

Strzok was having an affair with Lisa Page, special counsel to the FBI deputy director, and the two officials exchanged thousands of emails revealing political bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton.

The IG report noted "particular concern" by the apparent political bias in elevating the Russian investigation over the email probe, as revealed in text messages between Strzok and Page.

The texts between the two FBI officials "potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or improper considerations."

Most of the texts between Strzok and Page that appeared to impact investigative decisions were related to the Russian probe that was not part of the IG review.

"Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, ‘No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it' in response to her question, ‘[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!', it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects," the report said.

"Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," the report said.

In addition to Strzok and Page, text messages also were reviewed by the IG related to two other FBI agents, one on the email probe, and another FBI lawyer.

"The text messages and instant messages sent by these employees included statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for candidate Clinton, and several appeared to mix political opinions with discussions about the Midyear investigation,' the report said.

The conduct "brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI."

No direct evidence was found that the political biases were linked to investigative decisions, the report said.

But the report noted "the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the FBI Midyear investigation and sowed doubt over the FBI's work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation."

"Moreover, the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral fact finding and political independence."

The IG finding of bias will likely fuel further criticism by President Trump of the Russia investigation that eventually was elevated into Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

Trump has denounced the probe of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign as a political witch-hunt designed to discredit his presidency.

Clinton, for her part, has blamed Comey for undermining her election bid by re-opening the email investigation so close the election.

The IG report said Comey believed that his failure to disclose the newly found emails to Congress would be an act of concealment.

The IG, however, sharply criticized Comey for saying he had only two doors to enter, one for concealment and one for publicizing the re-opened probe.

"The two doors were actually labeled ‘followpolicy/practice' and ‘depart from policy/practice,'" the report said.

"Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment."

Comey was also influenced in mishandling the case because he believed Clinton would be elected president and he feared the information would leak if the FBI failed to make it public.

He also was concerned that "failing to disclose would result in accusations that the FBI had ‘engineered a cover up' to help Clinton get elected," the report said.

The report said there also were "concerns about protecting the reputation of the FBI" and worries about the perceived illegitimacy of a Clinton presidency if the discovery of the emails was not made public.

"We found no evidence that Comey’s decision to send the October 28 letter [to Congress] was influenced by political preferences," the report said.

"Instead, we found that his decision was the result of several interrelated factors that were connected to his concern that failing to send the letter would harm the FBI and his ability to lead it, and his view that candidate Clinton was going to win the presidency and that she would be perceived to be an illegitimate president if the public first learned of the information after the election."

Regarding FBI agents disclosing information to reporters, the IG stated that agents had unauthorized contacts with reporters and accepted favors and gifts in apparent exchange for details about the email investigation.

"We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters," the report said.

"In addition, we identified instances where FBI employees improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events," the IG said, noting the improper activities are under investigation.

The report said leaks, fear of potential leak and "a culture of unauthorized media contacts" influence FBI decisions regarding its investigations.

The report recommended providing guidance to agents and prosecutors on legal actions that could impact an election.

The IG also called for making an explicit rule that an investigating agency cannot announce its charging decision without consulting the attorney general or other senior Justice officials.

The report also suggested developing a policy on discussing the conduct of uncharged persons in public statements.

The IG also recommended improving the policy of saving of text messages from official mobile phones and devices and to include a banner on the devices warning users they have no expectation of privacy.

Better education of FBI employees regarding the policy on accepting gifts is also needed, along with disciplinary action to deter improper conduct.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, related matters
« Reply #724 on: June 15, 2018, 08:27:36 AM »
https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/inspector-generals-report-highlights-comeys-biggest-mistake/

there are bombshells along the way, like the fact that Comey himself sometimes used his personal e-mail to conduct (unclassified) FBI business. And that top FBI agent Peter Strzok actually e-mailed documents from the Anthony Weiner investigation to his own private account.

Indeed, Horowitz seems most frustrated by the Weiner angle — in particular, by the fact that the FBI’s top ranks waited nearly a month before acting on word from New York that the feds there had found Clinton e-mails on the disgraced ex-congressman’s laptop.

He finds all their explanations for the delay “unpersuasive” but couldn’t “identify a consistent or persuasive explanation for the FBI’s failure to act.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
IG Horowitz FBI Comey Report - link to text
« Reply #725 on: June 15, 2018, 08:52:22 AM »
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

"Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the
FBI’s handling of the [Hillary] investigation and the
investigation’s credibility."

Yes they do.

(Search nonetheless at the link text, this is the 2nd usage.


GRE English, use of words like nonetheless, however, but: what follows is in contradiction to what precedes it
http://www.conhecer.org.br/download/INGLES%20INTERMEDIARIO/APROFUNDAMENTO%20-%20CONJUNCTIONS.pdf
(Over a thousand combined uses of nonetheless, however, but, in the report.)  Nothing like writing in clear, straightforward English!

No bias except there was obvious bias in these instances. 

"But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed"   :?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
THE IG Report itself
« Reply #727 on: June 15, 2018, 08:03:08 PM »
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Ffile%2F1071991%2Fdownload&h=AT0ivOj177tSyfwU5DcQOSY9HRblHrJ5DkemSvpwLZH7NtgIv_ZK2S5cMAiePXgkcag3cy2FxIclSUpwN89ey3oLT10oy-AjgayH3R5vklOKaf6vcn6RJZHbIewiQynbyvBJbvUQ-4Q

""...As described in Chapter Five, the Midyear team did not seek to obtain every device or the contents of every email account that it had reason to believe a classified email traversed. Rather, the team focused the investigation on obtaining Clinton's servers and devices. Witnesses stated that, due to what they perceived to be systemic problems with handling classified information at the State Department, to expand the investigation beyond former Secretary Clinton's server systems and devices would have prolonged the investigation for years. They further stated that the State Department was the more appropriate agency to remediate classified spills by its own employees..." - Page 84 of 568, A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Compromised
« Reply #728 on: June 15, 2018, 09:49:30 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
We cannot spare this man
« Reply #729 on: June 15, 2018, 10:18:12 PM »
http://coldfury.com/2018/06/16/we-cannot-spare-this-man/

We cannot spare this man
 Posted on 6/16/2018      by Mike     
Devin Nunes, bless his heart, battles on against the swarm of Deep State vermin.

House Intel Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) was flabbergasted to find that the Strzok-Page text messages released with the IG report were redacted. He called it a “classic case of obstruction” from Congress. On the Thursday edition of FOX News’ Ingraham Angle, Nunes promised the committee is “going to get all of the documents” and the question will become, “Who is going to get busted? Who’s going to jail?”

The IG report was a whitewash, which is the only result one could expect when a Mordor on the Potomac bureaucracy as profoundly and irretrievably corrupt as the FBI/DOJ is allowed to “investigate” itself. Nunes knows all this.

“I mean, this is a classic case of obstruction, but then, the question is, who’s going to go investigate these guys?” he added.

“I want to read, to you, an exchange between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the star-crossed lovers. She basically said, you know, she was worried (ph) he’s — Donald Trump’s not going to get elected, right, right. And he answers, basically, don’t worry, we’ll stop it. No, no, no, no, we’ll stop it,” host Laura Ingraham said to the Congressman.

“He was the lead investigator on the Clinton e-mail case,” Nunes responded. “He’s the lead investigator that starts off the counter intelligence investigation, using our intelligence agencies to go after and target the Trump campaign. This is the guy who leads that off, but worse than all that, worse than all that, and I just want to repeat what I said, in the opening.”

“Why wasn’t that given to Congress? Why did I find out about that, today, at noon?” Nunes asked.

Oh, I think we can all figure that one out easily enough.

Nunes said he doesn’t know how the Mueller investigation can “end up fairly” after at least five people have already been kicked off the team and Clinton donors make up the “rest.”

It can’t. It was never intended to. That wasn’t its purpose.

“So if there’s five people who’ve been kicked off the campaign, I mean off the Mueller team, how is it possible that – if you look at the rest of the people that are there, I mean they were all Clinton donors. So – I – you know, I don’t know how this is – this is going to end up fairly. I don’t know where this is going,” he said.

It’s either going to fizzle out eventually with a shrug and a “meh,” followed by a very loud silence, or it’s going to lead to an upheaval so violent—yes, perhaps literally—that it will shake the very foundations of our metastized, malignant cancer of a national government.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Classified Appendix? Wonder what's in it , , ,
« Reply #732 on: June 16, 2018, 01:03:03 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The IG Report and The Legacy of Obama
« Reply #733 on: June 16, 2018, 01:39:02 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-ig-report-and-the-legacy-of-obama/

The IG Report and The Legacy of Obama
 BY MATT MARGOLIS JUNE 16, 2018

President Barack Obama announces he will nominate U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, right, to be the next Attorney General, Saturday, Nov. 8, 2014 (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

As shocking as the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the Hillary email investigation released earlier this week was, the truth is none of us should be surprised by it. I certainly wasn’t. Anyone who paid any attention at all to what was going on during the Obama years would know that what happened in the summer of 2016 within Obama’s Justice Department was the climax of an eight-year crescendo of partisan corruption, intent on protecting Obama’s legacy from Donald Trump.

Eight years is a short time for the FBI to go from a respected institution to a partisan arm of the White House, but it happened right under our noses, with the media doing its best to keep us in the dark.

From the earliest days of the Obama administration, the Obama/Holder/Lynch Justice Department protected political allies from justice. A slam-dunk case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party during the 2008 presidential election was inexplicably dropped, resulting in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights declaring in the summer of 2010 that there was evidence of “possible unequal administration of justice” by the Justice Department. Obama also blocked a corruption probe that implicated former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for bribery. He also illegally fired an inspector general who was investigating a friend and donor of Obama’s. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder worked in concert to protect each other. Holder would stonewall congressional investigations into Obama administration corruption and Obama would assert executive privilege to keep damaging information away from the eyes of investigators, such as crucial documents in the Fast and Furious investigation.

The Obama Justice Department also targeted Obama’s enemies. When conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was prosecuted for making $20,000 in straw donations to a friend’s U.S. Senate campaign, many legal experts saw it as partisan selective prosecution, including liberal Harvard Law School professor and Obama supporter Alan Dershowitz. James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, was placed on a terrorist watch list in order to limit his international travel after posting a viral video showing himself dressed like a terrorist crossing back forth over the U.S. border with Mexico to demonstrate the horrible state of our nation’s border security.

There are dozens of scandals in the Obama administration that never resulted in any of the key players being prosecuted. No special counsels were ever appointed. By the end of the Obama administration, they’d been able to get away with so much because the media refused to give anything damaging to Obama the coverage it deserved for eight years.

So, is it really that surprising that anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok was leading both the Trump investigation and the Hillary Clinton email investigation? There was no justification for this, but yet, it happened. And the impact of their political bias is undeniable. We now know from text messages between Strzok and his fellow FBI agent and lover Lisa Page (who also was involved in the investigations) that Strzok was going to do whatever he could, with the power of the FBI, to keep Trump out of the White House:

Page: [Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Strzok: No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.

There are other anti-Trump text messages from several FBI agents and lawyers as well, all of which raise legitimate concerns that the FBI’s investigation of Trump was a political witch hunt, and that there was a concerted effort to protect Hillary Clinton.

Dinesh D’Souza, speaking with Laura Ingraham on Fox News earlier this week, believes that the ”tremendous kind of glee and sense of immunity with which these agents at the high level of operating” suggests they were ordered by someone high up. Who gave the order? The answer to that, according to D’Souza, is the answer to the question, who benefits?

“Hillary benefits, but Hillary clearly couldn't have given the order," D'Souza said. "She was secretary of state and then she was out of the government. Obama, on the other hand, very much did not want Trump to win. He knew that Trump would try to erase his legacy. It's very embarrassing for him to be succeeded by Trump. I wonder if Obama is the one who gave the order.”

The reputation and our faith in the FBI have been severely compromised by eight years of politicization under the “leadership” of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch. That is a legacy of Obama’s that must be fixed. I have no doubt that most of the agents in the FBI, regardless of their political leanings, are upstanding individuals who believe in equal justice. But, somehow a slew of hyper-partisan anti-Trump agents all ended up running the most pivotal investigations leading up to the 2016 election by aggressively pursuing the dubious link between Trump and Russia, while simultaneously easing up on the Clinton email investigation.

We must make sure that the right people are held accountable, and safeguards are put in place to make sure such terrible abuses never happen again. But our faith in the FBI won’t be so easily restored.

 

Matt Margolis is the author of the new book, The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Russia, Comey, Mueller, IG and related, Who do they hold accountable?
« Reply #734 on: June 18, 2018, 07:45:13 AM »
Again, if Trump's Sec of State had an email scandal, it would be a Trump scandal.  Obama was part of Hillary's scandal and is still left out of it except for in commentary from the side that didn't like him in the first place.

Strzok and Page are a Strzok and Page scandal, McCabe, Weisman, and the rest., nothing to do with Comey, Mueller, Lynch, Obama?  I disagree.  Who hired them?  Who supervised them?  Who decided same team loaded with bias heads up both investigations?  Who authorized Cheryl Mills present, nothing under oath, don't come loaded for bear?  Comey under under Lynch and Obama.  Who hired the same biased agenda driven team to the top of the Mueller commission?  Mueller.  He didn't know??  He was hired because he did know this kind of thing.

WHERE ARE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TEXTS DURING ALL THIS??  That might tell you more about who knew what and when.  None.  Why was the "We will Stop him" text previously omitted?  WHO DID THAT?

How is that there is no consequence and no accountability?

This all came out Thursday-Friday.  Meet the Press on Sunday was 100% about Trump Lies:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/17/meet_the_press_roundtable_president_trump_vs_justice_department_family_separation_policy.html


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #737 on: June 18, 2018, 04:34:10 PM »
Caddell has impressed me more than once on FOX as a man of intellectual integrity.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #738 on: June 18, 2018, 04:42:02 PM »
Caddell has impressed me more than once on FOX as a man of intellectual integrity.


More rare than rooster teeth, to see that in a dem.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
WSJ: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
« Reply #739 on: June 23, 2018, 06:18:44 AM »
Mueller’s Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
It makes no difference how honorable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016.
FBI agent Peter Strzok and special counsel Robert Mueller.
FBI agent Peter Strzok and special counsel Robert Mueller. Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP via ZUMA Wire, Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
June 22, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET
169 COMMENTS

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrants, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the identities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked investigative information.

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed presidency’s legitimacy.

The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok’s text messages “created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.” The report adds, importantly, that “most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation.” Given how biases ineluctably shape behavior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton investigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insurance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitimacy.

What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general concludes that the pervasive bias “cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,” including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has made clear that when governmental action “shocks the conscience,” it violates due process. Such conduct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapment.

In U.S. v. Russell (1973), the justices observed: “We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” It didn’t take long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was offended by a prosecutor’s “realistic likelihood of ‘vindictiveness’ ” that tainted the “very initiation of proceedings.”

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton (1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have “power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizing any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility for the attainment of justice.” Prosecutors must be “disinterested” and make “dispassionate assessments,” free from any personal bias.

In Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), the court held that a state judge’s potential bias violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earlier, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was hearing. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the taint but heighten “the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be obscured,” the justices wrote. A single biased individual “might still have an influence that, while not so visible . . . is nevertheless significant.”

In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.

It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Department presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is “particularly important in an election year,” and “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the case with the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counterintelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be colluding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it was initiated “for the purpose” of affecting the presidential election.

The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s servers. But nothing in the public record suggests the Trump campaign aided that effort. The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed to help Mr. Trump’s election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocated by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and investigation, there’s still no public evidence of any such exchange—only that Russia attempted to sow political discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.

Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advocated dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic elites, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powers. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author paid Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia’s largest bank and the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.

No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he’d heard about such dirt but never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned emails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC hack and the Trump campaign.

Crossfire’s progenitors thus ignored an obvious question: If Russia promised unspecified dirt on Mrs. Clinton but never delivered it, how would that amount to collusion with the Trump campaign? If anything, such behavior suggests an attempt to entice and potentially embarrass Mr. Trump by dangling the prospect of compromising information and getting his aides to jump at it.

Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.

Mr. Trump’s critics argue that the claim of political bias is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Crossfire’s launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Congress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons embarked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington.

On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Comey from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he’d learned of “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign,” which had “employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to Russia and the Kremlin.” On Aug. 30, the ranking Democratic members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting “that the FBI assess whether connections between Trump campaign officials and Russian interests” may have contributed to the DNC hack so as “to interfere with the U.S. presidential election.” On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff reported the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier’s allegations regarding Carter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”

That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump’s victory, or that Mr. Comey’s ham-fisted interventions might have also hurt Mrs. Clinton’s electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials.

The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Crossfire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement to influence a presidential election “shocks the conscience,” any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outrageous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once the inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire’s genesis. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel’s activity be paused. Those affected by Mr. Mueller’s investigation could litigate such an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either Mr. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first.

Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. She is a professor at Florida International University College of Law.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
IG report
« Reply #740 on: June 23, 2018, 07:02:06 AM »
" special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation"

A side point. Rush made a good observation when he explained how the IG report exposed nothing really.  Everything in there we already knew .

JW people and others have pointed out for most part IG reports don't really do much
They never come to the obvious conclusions and just spit out a bunch of facts in ways so that each political side can use for their benefit.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
WSJ: CIA needs its own Horowitz report
« Reply #743 on: June 29, 2018, 05:19:20 PM »


Interesting , , ,

Why the CIA Needs Its Own Horowitz Report
No need to speculate: The intelligence agencies saw Trump as a de facto agent of the Kremlin.
Former FBI Director James Comey at a panel discussion in Berlin, June 19.
Former FBI Director James Comey at a panel discussion in Berlin, June 19. Photo: Carsten Koall/Getty Images
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
June 29, 2018 6:36 p.m. ET
9 COMMENTS

Now that the world has digested the Horowitz report, notice how much of the story it doesn’t tell. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treated as a closed loop when, in fact, much of its decision making was based on intelligence and advice supplied by other agencies.

Michael Horowitz deals with some of this information in a classified appendix, which the public can’t see. Even so, as Justice Department inspector general, he is not authorized to examine and dissect the internal communications and decision-making of other agencies the way he did the FBI’s. Yet the necessity of doing so fairly screams at us.

Mr. Horowitz mentions Russia many times in relation to the Trump collusion investigation but never in relation to the Hillary Clinton email investigation. He refers to secret intelligence that was pivotal to FBI Chief James Comey’s decision to intervene publicly in the Clinton case, but he doesn’t mention (as media reporting last year did) its Russian origins.

He tells us the FBI regarded the intercepted information, involving a purported improper communication by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as “objectively false.” He doesn’t tell us, as the Washington Post and CNN did last year, that some in the FBI regarded the information as a Russian plant.

He tells us that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama exchanged emails on her private server while Mrs. Clinton was especially vulnerable in the “territory of a foreign adversary.” He doesn’t tell us the foreign adversary was Russia.

One thing we learned, because Mr. Horowitz blurted it out in Senate testimony on June 18, is that the Loretta Lynch information, so crucial to Mr. Comey’s actions, has been kept from the public and even members of Congress because it “was classified at such a high level by the intelligence community.” Which is certainly convenient for the intelligence community.

Let’s be realistic. We’ve been told officially many times that Russia didn’t hide its activity in the 2016 race: It carried out its meddling in a blunt, in-your-face manner that would have been seen as a direct challenge to our own intelligence agencies. These agencies, in turn, viewed Mr. Trump as a witting or unwitting Kremlin agent.

We don’t need to speculate about this. The FBI’s Mr. Comey, since Election Day, has been a model of discretion compared with Obama CIA chief John Brennan and Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Mr. Brennan suggested on national TV that Vladimir Putin possesses secret information he uses to control President Trump. Mr. Clapper, also on national TV, called Mr. Trump a Kremlin “asset” whose election was secured by Russian meddling.

Their involvement in the events Mr. Horowitz details was extensive and pervasive and yet these men are invisible in his report. And it is hardly plausible that they were more restrained in their accusations against Mr. Trump in their private dealings with Mr. Comey before the election than they have been on TV since.

Which brings us to Mr. Comey’s potentially most consequential decision, his reopening of the Hillary email investigation just before Election Day, which many Democrats and independent analysts say may inadvertently have elected Mr. Trump.

Mr. Horowitz finds no convincing explanation of why a month elapsed between the surfacing of the Weiner laptop and Mr. Comey’s action. It might be useful, though, to understand what else was going on between Sept. 26 and Oct. 28. The Yahoo news article based on the Steele dossier had recently appeared. A Mother Jones piece would soon appear. Inquiries about the Steele dossier would have been pouring into the agency. The FBI would soon break off relations with Christopher Steele for speaking to the press. Harry Reid would soon exploit the FBI’s possession of the dossier to try to get its allegations into the media.

Mr. Comey would have seen that a partisan explosion was coming. Nothing would remain secret. Even in the expected Hillary victory, a GOP Congress would insist on an investigation.

This is the environment in which he made a decision that objectively seems aimed at redeeming the FBI’s reputation as a straight shooter amid a welter of intelligence community actions that eventually would be exposed and second-guessed.

An underremarked facet of the Horowitz report reveals just how much illegal leaking to the press FBI officials were guilty of. The same rock needs to be turned over with respect to Mr. Brennan’s and Mr. Clapper’s former agencies. If Mr. Putin’s goal was to make a mockery of U.S. democracy, his most useful if unwitting allies may well have been our so-called intelligence community.

Mr. Comey’s FBI is not the only intelligence branch that needs a good shaking out. Historians have a strong case already that both sets of today’s partisan talking points are valid: The Obama intelligence agencies were biased against Mr. Trump and also blunderingly helped elect him—a conclusion based in fact and yet so disconcerting that the press has turned away from it.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Interesting USG contractor Strzok mentioned
« Reply #744 on: July 05, 2018, 06:37:12 PM »
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1014351249754415110.html

I'm sure our professional journalists will dig deep on this!



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Looking at Strzok’s testimony through a post-modern lens
« Reply #747 on: July 13, 2018, 03:39:01 PM »
http://coldfury.com/2018/07/13/looking-at-strzoks-testimony-through-a-post-modern-lens/

Looking at Strzok’s testimony through a post-modern lens
 Posted on 7/13/2018      by Billy Hollis     


Man who considers himself a transgender woman: “In my mind, I’m a woman. You are required to take my opinions, residing solely in my brain, over any evidence to the contrary. It’s outrageous and insulting to suggest otherwise.”

Peter Strzok, paraphrased from his testimony yesterday: “In my mind, I’m not biased in my professional performance. You are required to take my opinions, residing solely in my brain, over any evidence to the contrary. It’s outrageous and insulting to suggest otherwise.”

It’s no accident that this comparison feels valid. The parallels are there. They come from the post-modern idea that there is no objective truth. There is only the narrative.

A man with gender dysphoria doesn’t believe in objective facts about his situation. He believes only in what he feels, and what he can get others to accept. If he gets a critical mass of people to agree that he’s a woman, then the narrative is established, and the rest of us are not supposed to challenge it with any of our grubby facts and evidence.

When it comes to Peter Strzok’s motivations and actions, he doesn’t believe in objective facts either. Not even for the purposes of law enforcement. The FBI has shown that facts in cases against people they dislike are not particularly important. What’s important is what they can get a grand jury, a judge, and the public to go along with. The narrative is that a minor misstatement by innocuous people like Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby is a heinous crime, deserving of prison time, whereas breaking federal law for years and mishandling classified information is no big deal and certainly not worthy of prosecution.

In the testimony yesterday, Strzok’s narrative is that he might have a teensy weensy bit of bias against Trump and for Hillary, but he’s such a superman that he never, ever, not for a single moment, allowed that bias to affect his professional performance.

This doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Yet, the post-modern left, including Strzok’s toadying allies in the Democrat Party and the media, defend him to the hilt. I call them all post-modern because the truth about the situation is entirely irrelevant when it comes to what the left wants and needs. What matters is what kind of narrative they can spin and get accepted.

That narrative doesn’t have to be actually believed by their opponents. Many people look at a man with gender dysphoria, and simply don’t believe that he’s a woman. They know the biology, and they know how people can deceive themselves into believing all kinds of nutty things. But the howler monkey gallery on the left will descend upon them if they make that opinion known. So they never say what they believe about it; life is hard, and there’s just no benefit to standing up to a psychologically disturbed person and stating the truth.

Similarly, the media and the Democrats don’t care if you or I believe Strzok is a lying sack of shit and a thug with a badge, or if we think the investigations he drove were explicitly to help the side he likes and sabotage the side he hates. They just want there to be enough people around parroting their narrative about him, so that if we say something negative about Strzok in polite conversation, one of their brainwashed howler monkeys will jump in with “How dare you?”

Much of the left’s energy in modern day society is devoted to constantly, continuously battling the truth that makes them look bad. Their main weapon is to make discussion of such truth out of bounds. They have many tactics to do that; we saw some on the floor of the Congress yesterday.

I think the most important single reason they loathe Trump with all their being is that he says what he thinks anyway, swatting their outrage aside like a gnat, and thereby poses an existential threat to their main means of control.

We all better hope Trump is successful in rendering that tactic ineffective. Otherwise, the end result is two political sides that hate each others’ guts and have no way to communicate about it.

Let me be clear, in case it isn’t obvious: the side that is responsible for that state of affairs is the one that abandoned truth in favor of post-modernist thinking. You can’t argue with them in Enlightenment fashion because they don’t accept the premises of the Enlightenment.

At this point, the left’s complete capitulation to post-modernism means that they have shut off all paths to a peaceful resolution. It’s about attaining and maintaining power for them now. Until people like Trey Gowdy and Jeff Sessions(zzz) are prepared to accept this reality and use every means at their disposal, including force. For example, they need to be jailing perps such as Strzok, Page, Comey, Lerner, Koskinen, McCabe, et.al. Otherwise, the left pays no price for their thuggishness and denial of reality. They will retain their power to maliciously ruin the lives of their political opponents, and retain control for the left at the federal level, no matter what the citizenry wants.

If allowed to stand, this effectively ends the American experiment. We all know the possibilities that branch outward from that point, and none of them are good.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #748 on: July 13, 2018, 04:22:01 PM »
"For example, they need to be jailing perps such as Strzok, Page, Comey, Lerner, Koskinen, McCabe, et.al. Otherwise, the left pays no price for their thuggishness and denial of reality. They will retain their power to maliciously ruin the lives of their political opponents, and retain control for the left at the federal level, no matter what the citizenry wants."

exactly.

however we have always seen the LEFT's people come to to the Congress , virtually and for all practical purposes , spit in their faces.  and mock the proceeding and viola - end of story.
Have there EVER been real consequences.  Can Congress do anything ?  I don't know.

we need a jury trial with 12 objective Martians who will call it like it is .  Not a DC jury that is out to gt the Right


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72263
    • View Profile
WSJ: What Trump should declassify
« Reply #749 on: July 13, 2018, 07:29:07 PM »
rd

    Biography
    @WSJopinion
    WSJOpinion/

July 13, 2018 6:58 p.m. ET
232 COMMENTS

FBI agent Peter Strzok’s appearance before Congress Thursday was a predictable political circus, and here’s what we learned: President Trump will have to declassify a host of documents if he wants Americans to learn the truth about what happened in 2016.

Mr. Strzok was combative, and he pointed to an FBI lawyer in the room as reason not to disclose much of anything about his investigation into the Russia connections of the Trump campaign. Under pressure from Ohio’s Jim Jordan, Mr. Strzok did reveal that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr acted as a channel between the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and the FBI in 2016. We already knew that Mr. Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion.

This means that Fusion, an outfit on the payroll of the Clinton campaign, had a messenger on the government payroll to deliver its anti-Trump documents to the FBI. This confirms that the FBI relied on politically motivated sources as part of its probe, even as Mr. Strzok insists he showed no political bias in his investigating decisions.

Yet if this is the most Congress could pry out of the FBI’s lead Russia investigator over 10 hours, legislative oversight won’t discover the truth. Mr. Trump will have to help Congress by ordering Justice and the FBI to declassify the relevant documents. Consistent with protecting legitimate sources and methods, here is the document list Mr. Trump should want released:

• The FISA applications. Justice and the FBI made one application and three renewals for warrants against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The text of those applications would show the degree to which the FBI relied on the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele at the request of Fusion GPS. They would also show how honest FBI and Justice were with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that approves warrants.

• Woods procedures documents. The FBI is required to vet and support the facts its presents to a FISA court when it seeks a warrant to eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen. These rules are known as Woods procedures, and releasing sections of this Woods file would show the extent to which the FBI verified the dossier or other evidence it used as its justification to listen to Trump campaign aides. More broadly, Mr. Trump should declassify any document that demonstrates what the FBI and Justice knew about the provenance and accuracy of the Fusion-Steele dossier.

• The 302s. These forms include information taken from the notes FBI agents make while interviewing a source or subject. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley last week asked Justice to declassify the 302s for 12 separate FBI interviews with Mr. Ohr concerning his contacts with Mr. Steele. Declassifying other 302s related to the subjects in this probe (including former Trump aides George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn ) would reveal what the FBI was told, who provided what information, and how much came from politically motivated sources.

• The 1023s. These are the equivalent of 302s for counterintelligence, and they document FBI debriefings with informants or sources. Mr. Trump should declassify these and other documents showing interaction between the FBI and Mr. Steele, Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Fusion backer Dan Jones, informant Stefan Halper, or anyone the FBI used to keep tabs on the Trump campaign. These documents would reveal the extent and dates of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign.

Mr. Trump is undoubtedly being told that declassifying these documents would set a bad precedent, or risk accusations that he is undermining special counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation. But the worst precedent would be letting mistrust and partisan suspicion persist over how law enforcement behaved during a presidential campaign.

Mr. Mueller’s probe is also moving ahead without interference, as his indictment Friday of a dozen Russian agents for hacking Democratic National Committee computers shows. But indictments of Russians who will never see a U.S. courtroom don’t tell us anywhere near the complete story. That duty falls to Congress, not to a special counsel whose job is deciding whether or not to prosecute crimes.

Mr. Trump is going to be attacked no matter what he does. He should declassify these records or stop complaining about his Justice Department’s lack of cooperation