Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘James Comey’

Klein: James Comey Peddling Falsehoods with ‘Questions’ for Mueller


Written by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/23/klein-james-comey-peddling-falsehoods-with-questions-for-mueller/

This combination photo shows President Donald Trump speaking during a roundtable discussion on tax policy in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., on April 5, 2018, left, and former FBI director James Comey speaking during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 8, 2017. Trump fired off …
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, left, and Andrew Harnik
 

NEW YORK — Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey has been making the media rounds peddling a list of “questions” that he compiled and published on the Lawfare blog in a posting titled, “What I Would Ask Robert Mueller.”

Comey’s “questions” are deceptively framed in a manner clearly aimed at attempting to perpetuate the Russia collusion conspiracy even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s extensive report found no evidence of any collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Below are the obvious answers to Comey’s “questions” on Russia, with the answers coming from Mueller’s report itself in addition to other documentation.

1 – Did you find that there were a series of contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government?

Perhaps Comey failed to read Mueller’s actual report, which concluded (emphasis added):

The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.

In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination.

Comey should also refer to the following section of the Mueller report, which related that Russia didn’t even know how to contact the incoming Trump administration after the billionaire mogul won the 2016 election:

As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect. As explained below, those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches — sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government — through business rather than political contacts.

The Mueller report details the hilarity of Russian President Vladimir Putin having trouble reaching Trump’s team to offer simple congratulations:

At approximately 3 a.m. on election night, Trump Campaign press secretary Hope Hicks received a telephone call on her personal cell phone from a person who sounded foreign but was calling from a number with a DC area code. Although Hicks had a hard time understanding the person, she could make out the words “Putin call.” Hicks told the caller to send her an email.

The following morning, on November 9, 2016, Sergey Kuznetsov, an official at the Russian Embassy to the United States, emailed Hicks from his Gmail address with the subject line, “Message from Putin.” Attached to the email was a message from Putin, in both English and Russian, which Kuznetsov asked Hicks to convey to the President-Elect. In the message, Putin offered his congratulations to Trump for his electoral victory, stating he “look[ ed] forward to working with [Trump] on leading Russian-American relations out of crisis.”

Hicks forwarded the email to [Jared] Kushner, asking, “Can you look into this? Don’t want to get duped but don’t want to blow off Putin!” Kushner stated in Congressional testimony that he believed that it would be possible to verify the authenticity of the forwarded email through the Russian Ambassador, whom Kushner had previously met in April 2016. Unable to recall the Russian Ambassador’s name, Kushner emailed Dimitri Simes of CNI, whom he had consulted previously about Russia, see Volume I, Section IV.A.4, supra, and asked, “What is the name of Russian ambassador?” Kushner forwarded Simes’s response — which identified Kislyak by name — to Hicks. After checking with Kushner to see what he had learned, Hicks conveyed Putin’s letter to transition officials. Five days later, on November 14, 2016, Trump and Putin spoke by phone in the presence of Transition Team members, including incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Comey’s team further cited Petr Aven, a Russian national in charge of Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest commercial bank. Mueller’s report states: “Aven also testified that Putin spoke of the difficulty faced by the Russian government in getting in touch with the incoming Trump Administration. According to Aven, Putin indicated that he did not know with whom formally to speak and generally did not know the people around the President-Elect.”

If Comey really wants to get into the weeds, he may do well to review the particulars of each instance of contact between members or surrogates of the campaign and individuals affiliated with Russia as thoroughly documented in Mueller’s report. In each case and with no exception, Mueller found no evidence of wrongdoing.

2 – In particular, did you find that a Trump foreign policy adviser learned that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails?

This will be answered together with Comey’s next “question.”

3 – Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?

Once again, Comey is trying to stir things up based on questions that were already answered inside Mueller’s report.

A reminder: as referenced above, Mueller concluded, “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.”

Anyway, Comey here is referring to one episode involving George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy panel adviser tangentially involved with Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The Justice Department’s filing against Papadopoulos documents that he was allegedly told by Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic plagued by allegations of suspicious associations, that on a trip to Moscow “he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton.”

Former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer later transmitted to the U.S. that he was told about the alleged Russian “dirt” on Clinton by Papadopoulos, reportedly leading to the start of the FBI’s controversial probe of Trump’s campaign under Comey’s leadership at the agency.

No evidence has been presented that Papadopoulos spoke about emails at his meeting with Downer or that Misfurd mentioned emails. But Papadopoulos later described to the FBI that “They [the Russians] have dirt on her”; “the Russians had emails of Clinton”; “they have thousands of emails.”

The Justice Department concluded, “No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office, shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the Campaign.”

Misfurd himself denies mentioning emails during his meeting with Papadopoulos, as per his testimony to the Justice Department: “But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation.”

In his report, Mueller does not at any point claim that Misfurd’s denial was false.

As National Review summarized, Papadopoulos later explained that any reference to emails was to Hillary Clinton’s private email server, a subject of international news reportage at the time of his meeting with Downer.

The magazine reports:

Papadopoulos says the emails he claims Mifsud referred to were not the DNC emails; they were Clinton’s own emails. That is, when Papadopoulos claims that Mifsud told him that Russia had “dirt” in the form of “thousandsof “emails of Clinton,” he understood Mifsud to be alluding to the thousands of State Department and Clinton Foundation emails that Clinton had stored on a private server. These, of course, were the emails that were being intensively covered in the media (including speculation that they might have been hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services) at the time Mifsud and Papadopoulos spoke — i.e., April 2016, when neither Mifsud nor Papadopoulos had any basis to know anything about hacked DNC emails.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, documented:

When interviewed, Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials who interacted with him told the Office that they could not recall Papadopoulos sharing the information that Russia had obtained “dirt” on candidate Clinton in the form of emails or that Russia could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information about Clinton.

Papadopoulos stated that he could not clearly recall having told anyone on the Campaign and wavered about whether he accurately remembered an incident in which Clovis had been upset after hearing Papadopoulos tell Clovis that Papadopoulos thought “they have her emails.”

The Campaign officials who interacted or corresponded with Papadopoulos have similarly stated, with varying degrees of certainty, that he did not tell them. Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, for example, did not remember hearing anything from Papadopoulos or Clovis about Russia having emails of or dirt on candidate Clinton. Clovis stated that he did not recall anyone, including Papadopoulos, having given him non-public information that a foreign Government might be in possession of material damaging to Hillary Clinton.

4 – Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump?

Here, Comey seems to ignore Mueller’s finding of no evidence of any coordination between Russia and Trump’s campaign. His question seems to suggest wrongdoing on the part of Trump’s team.

Comey should refer to multiple Breitbart News investigations by this reporter into the infamous brief meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 between individuals tied to Russia, Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials. Those probes point to the increasing likelihood of the confab being set up as a dirty trick against Trump’s presidential campaign.

Three Russian participants at the meeting have ties to the controversial Fusion GPS outfit, and two have confirmed ties to Clinton.

Also, email logs brought to light show numerous emails were exchanged between a Clinton associate, Fusion GPS and Trump Tower participants, with the subjects of some of those emails listing the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials and was by all accounts the very topic of the Trump Tower meeting.

One Russian participant in the Trump Tower presentation admits to personally knowing Hillary Clinton since the late 1990s and says he “knew” some of the people who worked on Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Another Russian attendee, a translator, testified that he was previously an interpreter for Hillary herself as well as for John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Questions are also raised by a timeline showing numerous personal meetings between Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and Trump Tower participants. A Clinton associate, Ed Lieberman, was listed as being present at one and possibly two of those meetings.

Separately, Lieberman met with one Russian participant the same day as the Trump Tower meeting, according to separate testimony.

There are also questions about the initial setup of the Trump Tower meeting, with the publicist who sent the infamous email to Donald Trump Jr. promising “information that would incriminate” Clinton later admitting that he used deliberately hyperbolic language to ensure that the meeting took place. No such incriminating information on Hillary was provided, according to all meeting participants. In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Robert Goldstone, the publicist, further said that he believes the meeting was a “bait and switch” by a Russian lobbyist seeking a meeting on another matter by misleadingly claiming to be bringing the Trump campaign dirt on Clinton.

5 – Did you find that, despite the fact that candidate Trump said he had “nothing to do with Russia,” his organization had been pursuing a major Moscow project into the middle of the election year and that candidate Trump was regularly updated on developments?

Comey is peddling conspiracies, suggesting that a proposed draft project discussed generally and briefly by a real estate company that routinely builds overseas — a potential project with no secured financing, land or developer — could amount to wrongdoing. Trump did not secure any real estate project in Russia, but even doing so would not have been illegal.

Michael Cohen, a convicted liar and fraudster, claimed during a guilty plea that he lied to Congress when he first said that discussions on a Moscow real estate project ended in January 2016. Cohen later claimed messages were exchanged through June and that he personally updated Trump on the project.

Mueller’s report documents that Cohen “emailed the office of Dmitry Peskov, the Russian government’s press secretary,” but actually sent an email to the wrong address.

Mueller’s office could not find any follow up beyond one phone call with Peskov’s assistant:

On January 20, 2016, Cohen received an email from Elena Poliakova, Peskov’s personal assistant. Writing from her personal email account, Poliakova stated that she had been trying to reach Cohen and asked that he call her on the personal number that she provided. Shortly after receiving Poliakova’s email, Cohen called and spoke to her for 20 minutes. Cohen described to Poliakova his position at the Trump Organization and outlined the proposed Trump Moscow project, including information about the Russian counterparty with which the Trump Organization had partnered. Cohen requested assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the project and with financing. According to Cohen, Poliakova asked detailed questions and took notes, stating that she would need to follow up with others in Russia.

Cohen could not recall any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the Office identify any evidence of direct follow-up.

Also, Cohen told Mueller’s office that “he elected not to travel at the time because of concerns about the lack of concrete proposals about land plots that could be considered as options for the project.”

6 – Did the Trump campaign report any of its Russian contacts to the FBI? Not even the indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?

What is Comey even talking about here? Which Russian “contacts” should Trump’s campaign have reported to the FBI? Mueller concluded not only that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, but that “the investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated” with Russia’s interference campaign. If Trump’s team did not “knowingly or intentionally” collude with Russia, how could they have known to report anything?

For Comey’s misleading insinuation of “indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton,” please see my responses to #3 above, since the credibility-challenged Comey is asking a deceptively phrased question about a disputed episode involving Papadopoulos.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article. 

Time for Comey To Sweat: Rep. Nunes Confirms Multiple Criminal Referrals on Witch Hunt Going to DOJ


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published April 8, 2019 at 6:17am

Ever since the release of Attorney General William Barr’s synopsis of the Mueller report, Rep. Devin Nunes — the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee — has been talking about criminal referrals for acts committed during the 2016 presidential campaign and its aftermath.

Now, the California congressman is making it clear just how many people he’s going after — and former FBI Director James Comey is just one of those who has a reason to sweat.

In an appearance on Fox News on Sunday, Nunes said he’d sent eight criminal referrals to Barr, the latest sign that high-level Republicans were going on the offensive in the wake of the Mueller report. Nunes told Fox News he’d been working on the referrals for over two years. However, he had delayed sending them over until Barr’s confirmation. (The Mueller report, one imagines, didn’t hurt his case either.)

“We’re prepared this week to notify the attorney general that we’re prepared to send those referrals over,” Nunes told host Maria Bartiromo. “First of all, all of these are classified or sensitive. … Five of them are what I would call straight up referrals — so, just referrals that name someone and name the specific crimes.

“Those crimes are lying to Congress, misleading Congress, leaking classified information. So five of them are those types.”

“There are three (referrals) that I think are more complicated,” he added.

They involve material investigators presented to the special court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“So, on the first one, is FISA abuse and other matters. We believe there was a conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, mislead the FISA court by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at that, and we believe the (relevant) statute is the conspiracy statute,” he said.

That likely referred to the use of the “Trump dossier” — assembled as opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee — to obtain a warrant in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court against a Trump campaign official.

Nunes later said that “we’ve had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used” in the probe into the Trump campaign and possible collusion with the Russians.

“The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence that also could ensnarl many Americans,” he continued.

“The third is what I would call a global leak referral,” Nunes said. “So, there are about a dozen highly sensitive classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two-and-a-half-plus years. So, you know, we don’t know if there’s actually been any leak investigations that have been opened, but we do believe that we’ve got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks.”

The “horrific” leaks Nunes referred to involved Trump’s conversations with major world leaders as well as the transcripts of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s phone calls.

“I think it’s impossible to ignore,” Nunes said. “If the Mueller team was busting people for lying to the FBI — there are some pretty simple times when people lied to Congress for the sole purpose of obstructing our investigation.”

The criminal referrals also might involve more than one person. In fact, Nunes said that a conspiracy referral could ensnare “a dozen, two dozen people.”

There are a few individuals we can possibly guess will be among those referred. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is being investigated for lying to Congress by both sides after inconsistencies in his testimony last month arose. And then there’s House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, who was suspected by Donald Trump Jr. when it came to leaking his closed-door testimony before the committee.

Fox News reported that in January, Trump Jr. said “there’s a 99.9 percent chance (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is) the guy” who leaked the 2017 testimony, adding that he “came out of testimony 8 at night and CNN is running quotes from noon on about my testimony, you know, in the House Intelligence Committee.”

“I mean, that has to say something about what is going on and who they are. Since (Schiff has) never met a camera he didn’t love, I would bet a lot of money that it was him.”

The FISA warrant, however, might be of more concern to Democrats, particularly when it comes to Comey. Even if the criminal referrals don’t include him, they’re bound to include those close to him — and that’s something that’s probably going to make him sweat. Others who have reason to sweat? Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. They all signed FISA warrant applications.

The Republicans have increasingly gone on the offensive since the release of the Mueller report. Nunes’ criminal referrals aren’t even the most aggressive move — that award, thus far, has to go to Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who’s proposed a special counsel to look into all matter of Obama-era shenanigans in regard to the 2016 election — but it’s in the same vein.

The message is clear:

Now it’s the Republicans’ turn. And unlike the chimerical Russiagate accusations — what President Donald Trump repeatedly called a witch hunt — this is actually real. The idea that a dossier consisting of dodgy opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats was used to get a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign employee — that’s real.

Lives being destroyed to promote a narrative? That’s real, too.

Peter Strzok’s text messages and conflicts of interest in several investigations? Again, real.

This is about justice. Now that the phony “collusion” narrative is out of the way, we can finally seek it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia.

Trump Furious as New Docs Show Potential Charges Against Hillary Quashed by Obama’s DOJ


Reported By Jack Davis | Published March 13, 2019 at 9:46am

New information shows the Justice Department was a “broken and corrupt machine” during its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

This week, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia released 370 pages worth of transcripts from testimony given to the House Judiciary Committee last summer. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who shared her anti-Trump sentiments with former FBI special agent Peter Strozek in a series of text messages that were later uncovered, testified about the 2016 investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

“The American people deserve to know what transpired in the highest echelons of the FBI during that tumultuous time for the bureau,” Collins said in a statement.

Trump cut to the chase in a pair of Wednesday tweets that condemned the Justice Department under the leadership of former President Barack Obama and the FBI under the leadership of former Director James Comey, whom Trump later fired.

“The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!” the president tweeted.

“Comey testified (under oath) that it was a ‘unanimous’ decision on Crooked Hillary,” he said. “Lisa Page transcripts show he LIED.”

Trump focused on a part of the transcript in which Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe was questioning Page, Fox News reported.

“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory,” Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to the transcript, “but when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to –“

“That is correct,” Page said before Ratcliffe could finish.

Page said she and other FBI officials objected to Justice Department decisions, according to excerpts published in The Washington Post.

She said that “we all at FBI” also disagreed with the ruling to let “fact witnesses” — Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — sit in on Clinton’s interview about her email scandal. Page said that decision was made by Justice Department officials and not within the FBI.

“It is not typically appropriate or operationally necessary to have fact witnesses attend an interview,” Page said in the transcript, noting that no other witness was allowed to bring such an entourage.

Ratcliffe tweeted Tuesday that Page essentially confirmed that “the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.”

Page said the DOJ and FBI had “multiple conversations … about charging gross negligence.”

She denied the FBI “blew over” potentially charging Clinton with gross negligence under the Espionage Act.

Officials considered the charge, she said, but thought it would be “constitutionally vague,” without any recent precedent, and “they did not feel that they could sustain a charge.”

Page said Richard Scott of the Justice Department advised against making the harsher charge, according to The Post. Scott had not responded to news outlet as of Wednesday morning.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz criticized FBI officials for showing their biases in the Clinton case.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Limbaugh: Mueller Investigation a ‘Cover-Up,’ Meant To ‘Distract Everybody’s Attention’


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published February 18, 2019 at 11:17am  | Modified February 18, 2019 at 11:20am

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said he believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was launched to “cover-up” the misdeeds within the Justice Department, including the FBI’s attempted “coup” against President Donald Trump.

During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Limbaugh was asked to respond to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s account that he was involved with a discussion with Justice Department Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 regarding invoking the 25th Amendment to have Trump removed from office.

Fox News host Chris Wallace asked the commentator why he described this revelation as evidence of a “silent coup.”

“Because these people are unelected,” Limbaugh answered. “They took it upon themselves to overthrow the election results of 2016, ignoring the potential real collusion and conspiracy between Democrats and Russians to undermine the Trump candidacy and the Trump presidency.”

“We’re losing sight of what happened here,” he continued. “People unelected simply because they don’t like the guy’s hairstyle or where he came from decided the American people’s decision was invalid and began a systematic process to get him thrown out of office. This is a silent coup.”

Limbaugh contended that those involved in these discussions are the ones who ought to be under investigation and going to jail.

“The Mueller investigation, I believe, is a cover-up of all of that. It’s to distract everybody’s attention,” he said. “This is one of the greatest political hoaxes that has ever be perpetrated on the people of this country.”

The conservative icon said the prosecution of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and others affiliated with the campaign for process crimes is all “designed to make it look like there was some kind of collusion between Trump and Russia.”

Limbaugh noted that no one has been prosecuted to date for the stated purpose of Mueller’s probe, which was to examine Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election, including whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. Many political observers, including Fox News host Sean Hannity, have pointed to the special counsel’s apparent lack of interest in investigating the origin and use of the so-called Trump Russia dossier as proof that Mueller is overseeing a one-side, agenda-driven probe.

The dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, was reportedly used to help obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Limbaugh said that a primary goal of Mueller’s investigation was to be the vehicle used to justify impeaching Trump, but now it is aimed toward the 2020 election and driving down the president’s approval numbers.

Trump tweeted on Monday, “Wow, so many lies by now disgraced acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired for lying, and now his story gets even more deranged. He and Rod Rosenstein, who was hired by Jeff Sessions (another beauty), look like they were planning a very illegal act, and got caught.”

He added in a second tweet, “There is a lot of explaining to do to the millions of people who had just elected a president who they really like and who has done a great job for them with the Military, Vets, Economy and so much more. This was the illegal and treasonous ‘insurance policy’ in full action!”

The Department of Justice’s inspector general released a report last April concluding that McCabe “lacked candor, including under oath, on multiple occasions in connection with describing his role in connection with a disclosure to the (Wall Street Journal)” in violation of FBI policy, and that his “disclosure of the existence of an ongoing investigation in the manner described in this report violated the FBI’s and the Department’s media policy and constituted misconduct.”

The OIG made a criminal referral to the DOJ regarding McCabe’s alleged lies to federal investigators.

In March 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe based on the OIG’s findings two days before he was slated to retire.

McCabe came under increased scrutiny following the release of text messages by the inspector general in December 2017 between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

In the texts, Strzok described Trump during the 2016 campaign as a “loathsome human” and an “idiot,” and found the prospect of him being president “terrifying.”

Page, who was having an affair with Strzok, texted him, “There is no way (Trump) gets elected.”

Strzok then replied, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office … that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.

“It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Andy” apparently referred to McCabe.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Source: ‘Hell List’ Circulating DC, Dem’s Plans To Cause Chaos in Nation


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | August 27, 2018 at

11:07am

Democrats with an eye on winning the midterm elections are already planning a multi-pronged assault aimed at taking down the Trump administration with a strategy of offensive techniques that seek to create chaos. Democrats likely believe going on the offensive by creating so many crises they will destabilize the Trump administration. And with the aim of returning Washington to the arrogant mess it was during the Barack Obama presidency, they are loaded for bear.

According to Axios, Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing for a pitched battle with Democrats if the current opposition party wins the majority in November and implements a a laundry list of crises they’re just waiting to dump on Republicans, turning “the Trump White House into a 24/7 legal defense operation.”

“Axios has obtained a spreadsheet that’s circulated through Republican circles on and off Capitol Hill — including at least one leadership office — that meticulously previews the investigations Democrats will likely launch if they flip the House,” the website reported.

That list includes:

  • “President Trump’s tax returns; Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution’s emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization; Trump’s dealings with Russia, including the president’s preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin; The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels;
  • “James Comey’s firing; Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys; Trump’s proposed transgender ban for the military; Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s business dealings; White House staff’s personal email use; Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks;
  • “Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago; Jared Kushner’s ethics law compliance; Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors; The “travel ban”; Family separation policy; Hurricane response in Puerto Rico; Election security and hacking attempts; White House security clearances.”
  • The list also includes more than 100 formal requests for members of the administration to go before committee staff in hearings to obtain sworn testimony, to seize communication relating to policies and personnel decisions deemed controversial, as well as threats of subpoenas.

As these requests span nearly every committee, the result would be a near gridlock of the Trump administration and would be considered a great threat to the Trump presidency. Many of the items on the current list are already floating around Capitol Hill, but Republicans have blocked requests for investigation. The fear is if Democrats take control of the House, the GOP will lose the power to control and block investigative calls in the future. And if special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation looks bad now, it might look like nothing compared to what a Democrat majority could do in the House.

The Hill reports: “Republican lawmakers have sought to downplay Democrats’ chances of taking the House in the upcoming elections, claiming reports of a ‘blue wave’ are overblown.”

However, Axios also reports that unnamed lawyers “close to the White House” have said the administration isn’t fully prepared for the Democrat offensive that’s going to break if the midterms hand control of the House or Senate — or both — to Democrats. Clearly, the list of chaos provides ample grounds for Republicans to worry.

The idea of the Trump administration being mired in an even more aggressive swamp in its second two years as it was in the first does not bode well for an agenda aimed at continuing the economic boom fostered by Trump’s deregulation strategies or rebalancing American trade relations with its international partners.

Perhaps they wouldn’t have to worry quite so much if they had their own “Hell List” of inquiry on matters such as the Hillary email investigation, Strzok-Page texts, possible perjury by James Comey and more. What has come out so far should have Republicans in Congress on the warpath, but virtually nothing is changing.

The American people might possibly elect, in a landslide, a party they thought was really serious about draining that Washington swamp.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Andrew McCabe Seeks Immunity For Senate Testimony



disclaimer1:11 AM 06/06/2018 | Chuck Ross | Reporter

Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, is seeking immunity in order to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to documents released Tuesday. “This is a textbook case for granting use immunity,” Michael Bromwich, an attorney for McCabe, wrote Monday in a letter to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the judiciary panel.

“Mr. McCabe is willing to testify, but because of the criminal referral, he must be afforded suitable legal protection,” Bromwich said. “Accordingly, we hereby request that the Judiciary Committee authorize a grant of use immunity to Mr. McCabe.”

Grassley invited McCabe and other FBI officials to a hearing tentatively scheduled for July after the expected release of a Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. (RELATED: Justice Department Watchdog Releases Damning Report On Andrew McCabe)

McCabe was fired in March, two days before his retirement, for a “lack of candor” during interviews with the office of the inspector general (OIG) and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility about his role in authorizing FBI contacts with the media about the Clinton probe.

Comey has gone on the record disputing McCabe’s claims. Bromwich decried “a stream of leaks” from the Justice Department about McCabe’s case in his letter to Grassley. He said leaks from the agency revealed the OIG made a criminal referral on McCabe to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.

“Even though Mr. McCabe committed no crime, these leaks have forced us to acknowledge the criminal referral,” said Bromwich, who added that he and McCabe “are outraged by these leaks.”

Bromwich issued the complaint despite the leak allegations against his client. The OIG found McCabe attempted to blame other FBI officials for the very same media contacts that he authorized Page to make with The Wall Street Journal, according to a preliminary report released on April 13. (RELATED: IG Report: McCabe Tried To Blame FBI Officials For His Own Leaks)

Bromwich noted the Senate Judiciary Committee is “eager to hear Mr. McCabe’s testimony” in his immunity pitch.

Immunity is warranted because “Mr. McCabe is eager to give such testimony; he has a legitimate fear of criminal prosecution based on the criminal referral that has already been made, the irregularities in the process by which he was terminated, and the improper command influence that continues to be exercised by the President of the United States.”

Bromwich has accused President Donald Trump of improperly targeting McCabe in a series of tweets about political donations that McCabe’s wife received in 2015 from then–Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, a longtime Clinton ally.

Grassley said he plans to consult with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the judiciary panel, to consider the immunity request.

He noted an immunity order would require a two-thirds majority vote and that “even if that were to occur, the Justice Department would then have a formal opportunity to delay any testimony and attempt to persuade the Committee not to proceed.”

Follow Chuck on please likeand share and leave a comment

Comey Disaster: Agent Who Quit Over Rigged Hillary Investigation Heads to Congress


disclaimerReported By Cillian Zeal | May 25, 2018 at 6:50am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/comey-disaster-agent-who-quit-over-rigged-hillary-investigation-heads-to-congress/

An FBI agent who allegedly quit the bureau over his belief that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was rigged will testify before the House of Representatives, The Hill reported.

The joint investigation between the House Judiciary and the Oversight Committees — led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, respectively — has been a source of consternation for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Conservatives have complained about the slow pace of the examination into how the Clinton email investigation was conducted, noting that only two witnesses have appeared before it.

Democrats, of course, have complained that it exists at all, since anything that distracts from the endless investigation into how President Donald Trump is really a Russian plant is simply frivolous — particularly if it implicates former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or former President Barack Obama in any wrongdoing.

Well, now we’re finally about to see some fireworks. Three top witnesses are going to testify before lawmakers: John Giacalone, who was in charge of the Clinton investigation for the first seven months; Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; and Michael Steinbach, former head of the FBI’s national security division and the man who succeeded Giacalone.

All three are of particular interest, especially since Priestap was the supervisor of FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages have thrown the objectivity of the entire investigation into doubt.

However, the real headliner here may be Giacalone. Shortly after then-FBI Director Comey announced he wouldn’t be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for the email server, Fox News pundit Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a column in which he claimed Giacalone had quit the bureau because he believed the investigation was rigged.

In the Oct. 28, 2016 column, Napolitano claimed at that at the start of the Clinton email investigation, “agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.” 

“Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going ‘sideways’; that’s law enforcement jargon for ‘nowhere by design,‘” Napolitano wrote.

“John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his ‘sideways’ comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.”

“The reason for the ‘sideways’ comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can,” Napolitano continued.

“Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants.”

Napolitano speculated there were several possible reasons that the case went “sideways.” One was that Obama feared having to testify if Clinton went to trial (he had sent emails to the private server, after all, meaning he was aware of it). There was also the fact that a Clinton indictment could have led to Trump becoming president, and Obama simply couldn’t countenance that. (Less than two weeks after Napolitano’s column was written, it must be noted, that reason became moot.)

Either way, if the investigation had indeed gone “sideways,” it would need to have done so with approval from the highest levels — certainly James Comey and possibly Barack Obama.like i said

Whether or not Giacalone has any concrete evidence of this or not is another issue entirely. My guess would be no, given that we’re going on two years since Comey’s infamous news conference and we still haven’t heard anything to that effect from Giacalone.

However, of all of the congressional testimonies we’ve seen over the past few years, this could be one of the most underreported. John Giacalone may open up a gigantic can of worms for Comey and Clinton — one that drags them back in the spotlight for reasons significantly less pleasant than their book tours.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: