|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2018 17:46:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2018 17:48:20 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/29/justice-dept-ig-key-fbi-officials-slated-for-capitol-hill-appearances-as-clinton-email-report-looms.htmlJustice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is slated to testify before congressional committees next month, presumably after the release of his long-awaited report on the FBI’s Hillary Clinton investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign, Fox News has learned. Both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee are preparing to have Horowitz appear before them in early June, according to a congressional source. On Tuesday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said his committee would hold a hearing titled “Examining the Inspector General’s First Report on Justice Department Decisions Regarding the 2016 Presidential Election” on June 5. In June, House Republicans also plan to interview three FBI officials linked to the agency’s handling of the Clinton email probe, part of an ongoing joint investigation by the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees. To be interviewed are: Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; Michael Steinbach, former head of the agency’s national security division; and Steinbach’s predecessor, John Giacalone.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2018 22:09:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2018 22:10:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on May 30, 2018 6:45:03 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/trump-russia-investigation-obama-administration-spying-hypocritical/The Obama Administration’s Hypocritical Pretext for Spying on the Trump Campaign By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY May 29, 2018 6:30 AM Where was its concern about Russia during its eight years in power? As I argued in my weekend column, it is hard to imagine a more idle question than whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. Of course it did. If you want to argue the point, imagine what the professors, pundits, and pols would have said had the Bush administration run an informant against three Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign co-chairman; any hair-splitting about whether that technically constituted “spying” would be met by ostracism from polite society. There is, in addition, more evidence — at least, more public, verified evidence — that Stefan Halper was a spy for the FBI than that Carter Page was one for Russia. This is not a small point. Spy vs. ‘Spy’ It has been credibly reported that Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, was tasked by the FBI in the Trump-Russia investigation to make contact with and get information from at least three Trump campaign officials. He even sought a role in the campaign from co-chairman Sam Clovis. Page, on the other hand, was the target of four FISA court surveillance warrants, which enabled the Justice Department and FBI to monitor him for a year, starting at the height of the 2016 campaign. To obtain such a warrant under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), the FBI and Justice Department must convince a judge that there is probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power — in Page’s case, of Russia. As we’ve previously outlined (here, last section), because Page is an American citizen, the Obama administration had to have told the court that he was either: (a) “knowingly engage[d] in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of [Russia], which activities involve[d] or may [have] involve[d]” federal crimes; or (b) “knowingly engaged in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of [Russia], that were undertaken “pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of [Russia],” and that “involve[d] or [were] about to involve” federal crimes. (See Section 1801(b)(2) of Title 50, U.S. Code. I am assuming it was not alleged that Page was knowingly engaged in sabotage, international terrorism, or the use of false identities, the alternative statutory grounds for claiming that a U.S. citizen is acting as an agent of a foreign power.) Assuming the Obama administration told the FISA court that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia, I’d make two observations: First, the only publicly known allegations that Page was engaged in such clandestine activities come from the Steele dossier, and appear to be unverified. Second, Page has never been charged with a crime, which would be odd if the FBI had been able to verify its FISA application claims — posited four times over a year of surveillance — that he was engaged in activities that appeared to be federal crimes. (We have not been permitted to see the FISA applications; I am assuming here that the Justice Department would not seek a FISA warrant, and the court would not grant one, unless the application addressed FISA’s requirements for showing an American to be an agent of a foreign power.) To put the matter more succinctly: We know why it is claimed that Halper was a spy; we still do not know why it was claimed that Page was a spy. To repeat previously covered ground, we know that Russian spies tried to recruit Page in 2013. Yet, it appears that he cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department in the prosecution of the spies. (The Justice Department used his information in the arrest complaint — here, pp. 12-13, paras. 32-33, referring to Page as “Male-1”.) The Russian spies, moreover, expressed contempt for Page, referring to him as “an idiot” in a monitored conversation. This would not seem to be a promising jumping-off point for any future recruitment efforts. The Norm Against Political Spying I want to be clear: I am not offended by the word spy. If Halper’s mission was righteous, the Justice Department and FBI should be proud that he was a spy. And if, on behalf of Russia, Page conducted clandestine anti-American activities that constituted felony violations of American law, I would enthusiastically support labeling him a spy and prosecuting him to the full extent of the law. I’d want any official who knew about and supported such traitorous activities to be removed from office and prosecuted. But there are two things to bear in mind. The first is that while the law liberally permits criminal investigators and intelligence officers to use informants, there are situations in which spying is resisted. Among the most important are those involving our politics, particularly elections. We have an important norm in this country against political spying — a matter of tradition, of democratic institutions, of constitutional principles, and of modern history’s Watergate chapter. The incumbent administration must not use its awesome counterintelligence, counterespionage, and law-enforcement powers against its political opposition absent compelling evidence of egregious misconduct. We’re rapidly reaching a point in the Russia investigation where partisan opinion revolves almost entirely around unproven assertions. On the anti-Trump left (and parts of the Never Trump right) there exists a burning conviction that Robert Mueller “has the goods” — that there is strong evidence of criminal collusion by Trump and/or his campaign, and critics of the investigation intend to either block Mueller before he can deliver his final report or discredit his conclusions to save the Trump presidency. Conversely, among the president’s supporters, there is now a presumption that the entire Russia investigation was and is a bad-faith effort by the “deep state” to create an “insurance policy” against a Trump victory — that there was never reason to investigate Trump, and each new revelation about a different investigatory technique (national-security letters, informants, FISA applications, etc.) is proof of additional wrongdoing. I’m in neither camp. I simply don’t know if Mueller has any “goods” on Trump or his campaign. He has obviously exposed a troubling degree of real and alleged criminal misconduct surrounding Trump, but he has not yet exposed evidence of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. To the extent that I have a view on the ultimate outcome of his investigation, I’m skeptical that it will find that Trump or campaign officials actively conspired with Russians. The best investigative journalists in the world have been attacking this story for more than a year, with the help of a White House that leaks like a sieve. Yet no substantial evidence of campaign collusion — legal or otherwise — has emerged. At the same time, however, I find the notion that the Russia investigation itself was corrupt from the beginning to be so bizarre as to border on fantastical. There was ample reason to investigate whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russians. Consider what we know, now widely verified through bipartisan sources. We know that at the very least the Russian government engaged in a disruption operation to sow discord and chaos in the 2016 election. The CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee agree that this disruption operation morphed into an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. At the same time that Russia was attempting to help Trump, the candidate had surrounded himself with a constellation of advisers who possessed problematic ties with the Putin regime. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had long been on the payroll of Putin allies, receiving millions of dollars in compensation for his work on behalf of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. One of Trump’s closest military advisers, Michael Flynn, had received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation from Kremlin-affiliated sources. One of the campaign’s foreign-policy advisers, Carter Page, had been actively recruited by Russian intelligence (to his credit, he apparently rebuffed those advances) and had long sought business relationships in Russia. And that’s not all, not by a long shot. We also know that Kremlin-connected Russians reached out to the Trump campaign, and that key members of the campaign team were enthusiastic about receiving Russian help. Donald Trump Jr. responded positively to a direct invitation to collude with Russia, taking a meeting with a Russian lawyer after being promised information that could hurt Hillary Clinton as part of an official Russian effort to help Trump. Trump brought Manafort and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to the meeting. Campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had contact with a Russian-affiliated professor who told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He received this information months before the first WikiLeaks releases rocked the Clinton campaign, and he later lied to the FBI about it. Trump confidante Roger Stone apparently had advance knowledge that WikiLeaks had obtained damaging emails from John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee. Notice that none of the evidence above connects to the so-called Steele Dossier — the document at the heart of what has been called “FISA-gate.” I agree wholeheartedly with Trey Gowdy. The Russia investigation would exist without the dossier: The dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’s meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice. But to the extent that the dossier matters — or the extent that the Carter Page FISA warrant matters — the proponents of the FISA-gate theory have not proven their case. Republican-appointed judges approved the warrant application and subsequent renewals. A Trump appointee signed off on the application to extend surveillance of Page. As for the merits of the application and its renewals, the public has only seen the smallest, most selective quotations from those documents. No one can make a reasonable assessment of their legality on the basis of publicly available information. Compounding all of these red flags, Trump officials have routinely hidden their Russian contacts and concealed their motivations behind a bodyguard of lies. Trump misled America about his reasons for firing James Comey, Michael Flynn lied to the FBI even about non-criminal contacts with Russia, and various administration officials have issued a truly extraordinary number of false or materially incomplete statements about their communications and actions. Now, I ask you, fellow conservatives: If the parties were reversed, and the Clinton campaign had engaged in similar conduct — even as it was known that Russians were trying to help Hillary win the election — would you believe those contacts and relationships merited further investigation? Would you be outraged if you learned the intelligence community had used FISA warrants or informants to uncover the facts? The Russia investigation has always been necessary, and it’s not over. None of this means that the FBI or any other American agency hasn’t committed acts of misconduct. American agencies often make mistakes or overstep their bounds, even in the most valid of investigations. Nor does it mean that there weren’t partisans, like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who may well have improperly put their thumbs on the scales. These concerns are worth investigating. Expanding the existing inspector-general’s investigation of potential FISA abuse into a wider probe of FBI conduct during the Trump administration is a prudent and necessary step. At the same time, however, it’s necessary to discount and disregard much of the the hysterical language that’s dominating talk radio and entire segments on Fox News. There is nothing inherently scandalous about using informants when investigating a presidential campaign, nor about seeking FISA warrants. Republican candidates and their campaigns are just as subject to the rule of law as Democrats, and it’s no less legitimate to investigate Trump than it was to investigate Hillary Clinton. Proving that the FBI investigated various Trump-campaign officials (even using informants or surveillance orders) is a long, long way from proving the FBI did anything wrong. In short, the Russia investigation has always been necessary, and it’s not over. The quickest way to discern whether a person is a credible analyst of this entire sorry affair is to determine whether they’ve prejudged the outcome, because no one knows what the future truly holds. Let the Mueller investigation continue. The partisan outrage can wait. DAVID FRENCH — David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. @davidafrench www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/russia-investigation-robert-mueller-reach-natural-conclusion/ |
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on May 30, 2018 6:50:14 GMT -6
President Trump has made it clear that he likes what he hears on Fox News. The network often covers the president favorably, bringing on conservative commentators that push the president’s agenda and, at times, explore far-right conspiracy theories. But in an unusual shift Tuesday, three voices on Fox News pushed back against the president’s most recent conspiracy theory. A Fox News guest, commentator and anchor all rebuked claims from the president and his allies that the FBI planted a “spy” in his campaign in an effort to undercut his candidacy. Outgoing Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the House Oversight Committee chairman and a Trump supporter, said in an interview on Fox that the FBI was justified in using a secret informant to assist in the Russia investigation. Gowdy, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, attended a classified Justice Department briefing last week over the FBI’s use of the confidential source, identified as Stefan A. Halper. “President Trump himself in the Comey memos said if anyone connected with my campaign was working with Russia, I want you to investigate it, and it sounds to me like that is exactly what the FBI did,” Gowdy told host Martha MacCallum. “I think when the president finds out what happened, he is going to be not just fine, he is going to be glad that we have an FBI that took seriously what they heard.” www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/30/on-fox-news-rep-trey-gowdy-and-andrew-napolitano-dismantle-trumps-spygate-theories/?utm_term=.63d3ab9fc23e |
|
|
|
Post by heff on May 30, 2018 8:23:26 GMT -6
At the same time, however, I find the notion that the Russia investigation itself was corrupt from the beginning to be so bizarre as to border on fantastical. There was ample reason to investigate whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russians. This is the NR writer, I assume. This is the kind of ignorance that people who will do anything, even self-delude, to preserve their mental comfort willingly engage in.
|
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on May 30, 2018 9:21:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 30, 2018 11:03:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on May 30, 2018 15:04:16 GMT -6
At the same time, however, I find the notion that the Russia investigation itself was corrupt from the beginning to be so bizarre as to border on fantastical. There was ample reason to investigate whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russians. This is the NR writer, I assume. This is the kind of ignorance that people who will do anything, even self-delude, to preserve their mental comfort willingly engage in.
You just described every Trumpist on the planet. I don't know if Mr. French falls into that category. |
|
|
|
Post by heff on May 30, 2018 16:00:11 GMT -6
This is the NR writer, I assume. This is the kind of ignorance that people who will do anything, even self-delude, to preserve their mental comfort willingly engage in.
You just described every Trumpist on the planet. I don't know if Mr. French falls into that category. Riiiight. It's mentally comforting to be socially ostracized, to go against 20+ years of indoctrination from public schools, media/journalism, and entertainment/infotainment. We're the ones doing the comfortable thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on May 30, 2018 16:12:03 GMT -6
You just described every Trumpist on the planet. I don't know if Mr. French falls into that category. Riiiight. It's mentally comforting to be socially ostracized, to go against 20+ years of indoctrination from public schools, media/journalism, and entertainment/infotainment. We're the ones doing the comfortable thing. "You"/Trumpists are not doing the comfortable thing. Trumpists are doing the delusional thing and are, essentially, a Cult of Personality. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepdog on May 30, 2018 17:16:27 GMT -6
Riiiight. It's mentally comforting to be socially ostracized, to go against 20+ years of indoctrination from public schools, media/journalism, and entertainment/infotainment. We're the ones doing the comfortable thing. "You"/Trumpists are not doing the comfortable thing. Trumpists are doing the delusional thing and are, essentially, a Cult of Personality. And the value to society of being a bullshit artist is? |
|
|
|
Post by berniemadoff on May 30, 2018 17:37:16 GMT -6
"You"/Trumpists are not doing the comfortable thing. Trumpists are doing the delusional thing and are, essentially, a Cult of Personality. And the value to society of being a bullshit artist is? Being a bullshit artist only begins to describe the faults of President Trump. He won the Election and is My President so I want him to succeed. Despite his being a pussy among many other things. |
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on May 30, 2018 22:11:24 GMT -6
And the value to society of being a bullshit artist is? Being a bullshit artist only begins to describe the faults of President Trump. He won the Election and is My President so I want him to succeed. Despite his being a pussy among many other things. Psst...don't look now, but unemployment is at 3.9 percent, black and Hispanic unemployment are at all-time lows, the GDP growth rate will be above 3 percent by the end of the year, we are no longer committed to the terrible Paris climate deal or the Iran nuke deal, ISIS in Iraq and Syria is pretty much destroyed, and we are on the verge of a mind-blowing peace deal with North Korea. What exactly is your definition of success? |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 9:14:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by redstripe on May 31, 2018 9:55:21 GMT -6
from the retarded article: And yet despite criticism even from former advisers to Mr. Obama, Mr. Rhodes offers little sense that the former president thought he could have done more to counter Russian involvement in the election. Mr. Obama had authorized a statement to be issued by intelligence agency leaders a month before the election warning of Russian interference, but was thwarted from doing more because Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, refused to go along with a bipartisan statement. So the President was THWARTED from releasing a statement by the senate leader. I had no idea the senate leader had so much power. |
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 31, 2018 10:41:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 10:53:41 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/05/31/stefan-halper-media-flynn/FBI spy Stefan Halper interacted with the media multiple times, according to a Cambridge researcher Former senior FBI officials said the interactions could be a cause for concern for the FBI, one calling them “highly irregular” Halper was reportedly an anonymous source on reports surrounding allegations about Michael Flynn’s relations with a Russian national While working as a spy for the FBI, Stefan Halper interacted on multiple occasions with the media, both on the record and, according to a University of Cambridge researcher, as an anonymous background source. Those media interactions, which occurred between December 2016 and March 2017, could be cause for concern for the FBI, according to two retired senior bureau officials who worked closely with confidential informants during their careers. “This is something that is highly irregular and not something that I would have ever tolerated with any of the folks working for me,” retired FBI investigator and CNN analyst James Gagliano told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The road is fraught with peril when somebody is speaking off the cuff or speaking to the media and putting themselves in a position where that can then be used as discovery material when we do bring a case.” Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund President Ron Hosko, a former assistant director of the FBI’s criminal investigative division, added that an informant’s interactions with the press could create circular reporting that would serve to make their information “appear more valuable or more true” than it actually is.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 10:55:47 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/05/31/clapper-says-no-evidence-of-collusion/James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, said he has not seen “smoking gun” or “direct” evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. “I saw no smoking-gun evidence of collusion before I left the government, and I still haven’t,” Clapper told Vox in an interview Thursday to promote his new book, “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence.” “There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and reasons to be suspicious, but no smoking gun as of yet.” Clapper did say he was interested in the number of contacts between members of the Trump campaign and people linked to the Russian government. He wrote in “Facts and Fears” that “the dashboard warning lights were all lit.” “I certainly wondered about [collusion] when I saw the frequency of meetings between people in the Trump campaign and people with ties to the Russian government,” said Clapper, who now works as a CNN analyst. Clapper went on to say he hopes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will be able to get to the bottom of whether the campaign colluded with the Kremlin. The allegation is laid out most directly in the infamous dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele, funded by Democrats. “The country badly needs a resolution on this issue because it hangs over us like a cloud right now,” Clapper told Vox. “I’m certainly not saying there was no collusion; I just haven’t seen any direct evidence of it yet.”
|
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on May 31, 2018 11:21:37 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/05/31/clapper-says-no-evidence-of-collusion/James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, said he has not seen “smoking gun” or “direct” evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. “I saw no smoking-gun evidence of collusion before I left the government, and I still haven’t,” Clapper told Vox in an interview Thursday to promote his new book, “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence.” “There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and reasons to be suspicious, but no smoking gun as of yet.” Clapper did say he was interested in the number of contacts between members of the Trump campaign and people linked to the Russian government. He wrote in “Facts and Fears” that “the dashboard warning lights were all lit.” “I certainly wondered about [collusion] when I saw the frequency of meetings between people in the Trump campaign and people with ties to the Russian government,” said Clapper, who now works as a CNN analyst. Clapper went on to say he hopes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will be able to get to the bottom of whether the campaign colluded with the Kremlin. The allegation is laid out most directly in the infamous dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele, funded by Democrats. “The country badly needs a resolution on this issue because it hangs over us like a cloud right now,” Clapper told Vox. “I’m certainly not saying there was no collusion; I just haven’t seen any direct evidence of it yet.” The arrogance and complete discounting of the facts and judicial protocol here, by a man who ran the CIA for years, is absolutely staggering. "I'm not saying there was no collusion, but I've seen no direct evidence of it yet." Oh really? So you don't understand how the rights of the accused work, then? Or how about contrasting his stated disapproval of the President (in most respects, as far as I can tell), and his belief in not proof or evidence, but "dashboard lights." So, there was circumstantial evidence, and you investigated him during the campaign. You didnt find any proof, but you pushed the allegations public anyway. Even allowed opposition research to become public record, secretly? Then you go on national TV and claim there was no one placed into the Trump campaign? Then you admit there was, but dont like the word "spy," even though it fits the definition to a T? And, you have already been caught lying to the Senate, so your own hands arent even clean? Is this dude for real? More shocking that people believe him than that he's out there saying this. And, thats saying something.... Spencer: “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation." |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on May 31, 2018 11:25:54 GMT -6
I cant even....surely not. |
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 31, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 31, 2018 12:31:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by trumped on May 31, 2018 12:33:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 12:49:10 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/05/31/clapper-says-no-evidence-of-collusion/James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, said he has not seen “smoking gun” or “direct” evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. “I saw no smoking-gun evidence of collusion before I left the government, and I still haven’t,” Clapper told Vox in an interview Thursday to promote his new book, “Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence.” “There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and reasons to be suspicious, but no smoking gun as of yet.” Clapper did say he was interested in the number of contacts between members of the Trump campaign and people linked to the Russian government. He wrote in “Facts and Fears” that “the dashboard warning lights were all lit.” “I certainly wondered about [collusion] when I saw the frequency of meetings between people in the Trump campaign and people with ties to the Russian government,” said Clapper, who now works as a CNN analyst. Clapper went on to say he hopes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will be able to get to the bottom of whether the campaign colluded with the Kremlin. The allegation is laid out most directly in the infamous dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele, funded by Democrats. “The country badly needs a resolution on this issue because it hangs over us like a cloud right now,” Clapper told Vox. “I’m certainly not saying there was no collusion; I just haven’t seen any direct evidence of it yet.” The arrogance and complete discounting of the facts and judicial protocol here, by a man who ran the CIA for years, is absolutely staggering. "I'm not saying there was no collusion, but I've seen no direct evidence of it yet." Oh really? So you don't understand how the rights of the accused work, then? Or how about contrasting his stated disapproval of the President (in most respects, as far as I can tell), and his belief in not proof or evidence, but "dashboard lights." So, there was circumstantial evidence, and you investigated him during the campaign. You didnt find any proof, but you pushed the allegations public anyway. Even allowed opposition research to become public record, secretly? Then you go on national TV and claim there was no one placed into the Trump campaign? Then you admit there was, but dont like the word "spy," even though it fits the definition to a T? And, you have already been caught lying to the Senate, so your own hands arent even clean? Is this dude for real? More shocking that people believe him than that he's out there saying this. And, thats saying something.... Spencer: “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation." He is consistently changing his story every time he’s interviewed about this matter. I’m starting to wonder if this is the initial stages of where the Spygate participants are starting to turn on each other to save themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 12:51:44 GMT -6
On Thursday, retired FBI agent James Gagliano asked why the DNC is resisting to surrender its compromised servers if they were truly the victim of a hack.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 12:55:43 GMT -6
I cant even....surely not. True, but the article and piece quoted in the tweet make a very compelling case towards Obama doing this. And in all honesty, would it be shocking? He had spied on reporters, etc for eight years,(along with other drastically minimized scandals), so this would be in the wheel house. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 31, 2018 13:09:54 GMT -6
Interesting. thefederalist.com/2018/05/30/trey-gowdy-didnt-even-see-documents-he-claims-exonerate-fbi-on-spygate-reports/Trey Gowdy Didn’t Even See Documents He Claims Exonerate FBI On Spygate: Reports Gowdy claimed that the FBI's use of spies against the Trump campaign was perfectly proper, but multiple reports indicate he never even saw the full records Congress subpoenaed on the matter. Mollie Hemingway By Mollie Hemingway MAY 30, 2018 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) recently suggested the FBI did nothing wrong when it used at least one government informant to secretly collect information on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Public reports indicate, however, that Gowdy never even reviewed the relevant documents on the matter subpoenaed by Congress. In fact, a spokeswoman for Gowdy told The Federalist that the congressman doesn’t even know what documents and records were subpoenaed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The briefing Gowdy and other lawmakers attended was scheduled at the behest of the White House after the Department of Justice (DOJ) obstructed the subpoena. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein likened HPSCI’s constitutionally obligated congressional oversight of DOJ to “extortion.” Although Gowdy intimated that the information he received in a briefing last week made clear the FBI did nothing wrong, numerous reports from multiple news outlets indicated that the lawmakers DOJ invited to the briefing were not given access to all of the records HPSCI subpoenaed. Other comments Gowdy made during recent television interviews raise questions about how firm a grasp he has on the investigation and concerns the investigation has raised. The May 24 briefing was held after tensions flared over the Justice Department’s refusal to comply with the congressional subpoena. DOJ initially claimed President Trump backed its obstruction efforts, a charge refuted by the White House and President Trump himself. According to government sources who leaked information to The New York Times and Washington Post, the subpoena dealt with an individual who was secretly gathering information on the Trump campaign on behalf of the federal government. Media outlets had reported government officials’ claims they couldn’t comply with the subpoena because revealing any details about the individual would cause loss of life and grave threats to national security. The same media outlets then used leaks from government officials to report the individual’s personally identifying information — up to and including his name. Along with Gowdy, HPSCI Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) received a classified briefing on the subpoenaed information. Seven other members of Congress did as well. However, multiple press reports indicate the classified briefings reportedly did not satisfy the subpoena. CNN reporter: Another one: ......... Report brings up an interesting point. If Gowdy did not see the documents that they went there to see, then how can one say the FBI is exonerated? Until those documents are viewed, the answers to the questions will remain as they are currently. |
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on May 31, 2018 13:14:10 GMT -6
Interesting. thefederalist.com/2018/05/30/trey-gowdy-didnt-even-see-documents-he-claims-exonerate-fbi-on-spygate-reports/Trey Gowdy Didn’t Even See Documents He Claims Exonerate FBI On Spygate: Reports Gowdy claimed that the FBI's use of spies against the Trump campaign was perfectly proper, but multiple reports indicate he never even saw the full records Congress subpoenaed on the matter. Mollie Hemingway By Mollie Hemingway MAY 30, 2018 Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) recently suggested the FBI did nothing wrong when it used at least one government informant to secretly collect information on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Public reports indicate, however, that Gowdy never even reviewed the relevant documents on the matter subpoenaed by Congress. In fact, a spokeswoman for Gowdy told The Federalist that the congressman doesn’t even know what documents and records were subpoenaed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The briefing Gowdy and other lawmakers attended was scheduled at the behest of the White House after the Department of Justice (DOJ) obstructed the subpoena. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein likened HPSCI’s constitutionally obligated congressional oversight of DOJ to “extortion.” Although Gowdy intimated that the information he received in a briefing last week made clear the FBI did nothing wrong, numerous reports from multiple news outlets indicated that the lawmakers DOJ invited to the briefing were not given access to all of the records HPSCI subpoenaed. Other comments Gowdy made during recent television interviews raise questions about how firm a grasp he has on the investigation and concerns the investigation has raised. The May 24 briefing was held after tensions flared over the Justice Department’s refusal to comply with the congressional subpoena. DOJ initially claimed President Trump backed its obstruction efforts, a charge refuted by the White House and President Trump himself. According to government sources who leaked information to The New York Times and Washington Post, the subpoena dealt with an individual who was secretly gathering information on the Trump campaign on behalf of the federal government. Media outlets had reported government officials’ claims they couldn’t comply with the subpoena because revealing any details about the individual would cause loss of life and grave threats to national security. The same media outlets then used leaks from government officials to report the individual’s personally identifying information — up to and including his name. Along with Gowdy, HPSCI Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) received a classified briefing on the subpoenaed information. Seven other members of Congress did as well. However, multiple press reports indicate the classified briefings reportedly did not satisfy the subpoena. CNN reporter: Another one: ......... Report brings up an interesting point. If Gowdy did not see the documents that they went there to see, then how can one say the FBI is exonerated? Until those documents are viewed, the answers to the questions will remain as they are currently. Watching this one as well.... Gowdy is someone I see as more moderate (than most in DC today). I want to know what he saw and didn't see. Also, there are reports that Nunes got something entirely different. wtf?? So much going on, and you can view that as intentional obfuscation by Mueller to keep Trump and Co off guard, or that the wheels are coming off of the investigation. As with most things, its prob a little of both. I just hope Mueller can justify his sleight of hand, because this investigation will be more critiqued than the Warren Commission. Bet on that. |
|
