Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the FBI category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

After reading this post by John Hinderaker, I can’t sit idly by. The pictures embedded in Michelle Malkin’s tweets should make any decent-minded people furious. After the tweeted picture, John said “Once again, I call on all Democrats to stop defending and promoting Antifa, and rather to disavow the fascists in their midst.”

I don’t disagree with John, though I’m a bit more upset with these criminals. There’s no doubt that Democrats know who these criminals are. After all, Antifa are nothing more than violent activist Democrat thugs.

First, it’s time to dispatch accountability troops to Portland. If that’s law enforcement from the state level or FBI agents, I don’t care. It’s time to throw these thugs into prison. Next, it’s time for the Portland City Council to ban face masks on city streets. Either your face is exposed or you’re arrested. Period. Third, it’s time to defeat Mayor Ted Wheeler. He’s a wimp who won’t stand up to his city’s criminals:


Wheeler won’t even name Antifa. That’s stunning because it’s totally cowardly. It sounds like Ilhan Omar saying “some people did something” in describing 9/11.

If Democrats won’t rat out their Antifa activists, US voters should throw Democrats out of office in 2020. Democrats aren’t committed to civil rights. They’re committed to political power at all costs. They aren’t patriots. Democrats are the opposite of patriots.

In this opinion piece, former VP Joe Biden wrote that “We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.” He continued, saying “Our country is made up of hard-working, aspirational people from every culture, from every nation — and that is an indisputable strength. There’s no better example of the richness that’s possible when the United States is closely knit together with our neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean than the city of Miami.”

After that, Sleepy Joe gets a little confusing. He said “That starts by recognizing that DREAMers are Americans, and Congress needs to make it official. The millions of undocumented people in the United States can only be brought out of the shadows through fair treatment, not ugly threats.” Which is it, Joe? Are we a nation of laws or are we supposed to ignore people that are now flooding into the US due to loopholes in our asylum laws? Those folks aren’t DREAMers. They’re an entirely new categorization of illegal immigrants.

Our asylum system needs to be improved, but the answer is to streamline and strengthen it so that it benefits legitimate claims of those fleeing persecution, while reducing potential for abuse.

Joe’s actually right for a change. Our asylum system needs to be improved. Why Biden doesn’t tell Democrats to get off their posteriors and help fix the problem is puzzling, though. Thus far, Democrats have done exactly nothing to fix that crisis. Then there’s this:

And it’s imperative that we secure our borders, but “Build the wall” is a slogan divorced from reality.

National security isn’t Joe’s strength. The MSM reports it to be but former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of over the past four decades.”

It won’t stop the flow of illegal narcotics or human trafficking, both of which come primarily through legal ports of entry. Nor will it stop asylum seekers fleeing the most desperate conditions imaginable and who have the right to have their cases heard. Nor will it stem the numbers of undocumented, most of whom overstay legal visas.

This isn’t difficult to translate. The Obama-Biden administration did virtually nothing to fix asylum laws. They didn’t build the wall, which is essential. (Joe says it isn’t. Israel says it’s highly successful. I’ll side with the Israelis.)

Under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages, tear-gassing asylum seekers, ripping children from their mothers’ arms — actions that subvert American values and erode our ability to lead on the global stage.

Joe, it isn’t President Trump’s fault that the MSM showed pictures of children in cages that were from the Obama-Biden administration. You, not President Trump, locked kids in cages:

Biden suffers from Democrat Syndrome. Its prominent tell-tale sign is the inability to tell the truth. That’s been a frequent problem with Joe. He’s a serial plagiarist. He’s campaigned by telling blacks that Mitt Romney wanted to “put y’all back in chains”:

The good news is that VP Biden isn’t the strongest frontrunner I’ve ever seen. Then again, he isn’t running against a strong group of candidates. This might be the worst list of presidential candidates that the Democrats have ever put forward.

It’s indisputable that the US is a nation of immigrants. What’s disputable is whether we’re a nation of laws anymore. It’s disputable because former FBI Director Jim Comey appropriated the authority given to the Attorney General. It’s disputable because the FBI used information that it knew was fraudulent to get a warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Further, the FBI got that warrant by telling the FISA Court that the fraudulent information had been verified.

That isn’t what a nation of laws does. That’s what a bunch of criminals do.

John Solomon’s reporting in this article should worry Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutor.

According to Solomon’s article, “an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit” that “[t]he April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort’s company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the ‘black ledger.'” Then Solomon wrote “There are two glaring problems with that assertion. First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.”

Then there’s this:

Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.

It gets worse:

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence,” he said. “It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” he added.

The operational premise likely is that the FBI should have firsthand information because of its investigation. The other premise is that ‘news’ articles aren’t exactly reliable these days. News articles, furthermore, should be considered hearsay. That’s the most important reason why judges shouldn’t trust news articles. The other important reason not to trust news articles is because, lately, political operatives have weaponized information in a way to sabotage their opponent’s campaign.

Why wouldn’t Weissmann worry about the inaccuracy of this information? Is it because he’s that unethical? Is it because he’s that much of a partisan hack? Is it because he isn’t as worried about accuracy as he is about convictions whatever the cost? Is it all of the above? I’m betting it’s the last one.

John Solomon and Sarah Carter are the Woodward and Bernstein of 2019. They aren’t alone, though. It’d be improper to not recognize the work of Devin Nunes and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. In this video, Mr. Fitton goes into detail on the multiple dossiers in play:

If Weissmann isn’t worried, he’s stupid. The Judicial Watch video is fascinating because it highlights the connections between Steele and the State Department and/or Obama administration officials. That sounds pretty shady. I don’t know if it’s illegal but it’s worth looking into.

What I know is that the US attorney that’s assigned to “investigate the investigators” isn’t a prosecutor to be trifled with. John Durham took over a 30-year-old cold case and turned it into a conviction. If laws were broken, Mr. Durham will get a conviction. With all of the documents admitting what various people were doing, I can’t imagine Durham not getting to the bottom of these cases.

As is becoming the case more often lately, Rep. Devin Nunes has uncovered another important document that provides a more complete picture of the Mueller special counsel investigation.

According to the article, Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA), “told Fox News he’d reviewed still-classified materials related to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memos outlining the breadth of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation. He said the bulk of the information in the second scope memo came from the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

The further we dig into this fishing expedition, the more we find out that the Steele document essentially triggered the government’s surveillance and the government’s investigation. That’s pretty frightening when you consider the fact that Steele’s document is likely Russian disinformation that couldn’t be verified if Steele’s life depended on it. Check out this interview:

It’s important to ask the question about whether any part of this investigation was based on legitimate, verifiable intel. If this doesn’t sound like the Deep State working overtime, then I don’t know what does. This isn’t just a screw-up. This is, quite possibly, the insurance policy that Strzok and Page talked about. It isn’t a stretch to think that Strzok and Page thought a special counsel investigation into President Trump that was based on Russian disinformation would cripple President Trump’s administration.

Why would the Intelligence Community start an investigation based on a document that they were repeatedly told was fiction? And yes, the FBI, State Department and the CIA were told the Steele document was worthless multiple times.

This article highlights the things that the leftists want us to ignore.

It opens by saying “President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that his administration is the ‘most transparent in history,’ and that it has ‘cooperated totally’ with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, or words to that effect. But the truth is quite the opposite. No prior administration has pushed the envelope of the law to deflect outside scrutiny to the same degree as this one. In a recent letter from the White House to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the president, in effect, rejected the entire notion of congressional oversight as illegitimately political: ‘Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.'”

This Democrat apparently thinks that whatever House Democrats do in investigating is fine even if the Mueller Report was supposed to be the be-all-end-all of investigations. When the report didn’t deliver the impeachment goods that Democrats were looking for, House Democrats launched a full frontal assault on the Trump administration, issuing 81 subpoenas for documents from people who either haven’t been in office ever or who aren’t in office anymore.

That’s the definition of a fishing expedition. Feel free to call it a witch hunt instead if that’s your preference.

By contrast, prior presidents understood that respect for the rule of law means, in the end, complying with the law, no matter what the cost. That was true even of those under investigation, such as President Bill Clinton. And I should know—I was a member of the team led by Independent Counsel Ken Starr that investigated him.

President Trump didn’t utilize executive privilege while the Mueller investigation was happening. The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege frequently. President Trump made his personal staff available for interviews. President Clinton didn’t allow his personal staff to meet with Mr. Starr’s investigators.

Mr. Rosenzweig should stop trying to rewrite history.

Consider, by way of example and comparison, Clinton’s use of executive privilege—a privilege that Trump has also invoked in recent days to frustrate the House’s effort to get the unredacted version of the Mueller report. Just what is executive privilege, and why do we have it?

Notice the subtlety. President Clinton invoked executive privilege while the grand jury was seated. President Trump invoked executive privilege after Mueller had wrapped up its investigation.

That’s a significant difference. President Clinton protected his high-ranking staff from grand jury exposure. President Trump didn’t protect his senior staff in that way.

It isn’t a matter of if in terms of whether Mueller, Clapper, Comey and Brennan testify. Mueller will testify before Congress. Comey, Clapper and Brennan will testify before a grand jury. Sen. Graham and Mr. Durham will have them sweating bullets.

Democrats know that they’re sort of fine if they stick to their talking points. Democrats know that they’re in trouble the minute they’re pushed off their talking points.

Anyone who objectively watched Robert Mueller’s ‘press conference’ knows that Mr. Mueller did some shady things. Rest assured that Mr. Mueller won’t like Jonathan Turley’s op-ed.

Professor Turley nails Mr. Mueller by saying that “His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.”

I wrote here that Democrats (and Mueller) have a “presumption of innocence problem.” They don’t seem to accept as fact that people are presumed innocent until a prosecutor presents evidence that proves that they’re guilty. They only accept it as fact when the person is a Democrat’s ally. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence is a relic from an outdated document (the Constitution.)

Mueller was appointed almost two years before he released his report. He was fully aware that Congress, the Justice Department, the media, and the public expected him to reach conclusions on criminal conduct, a basic function of the special counsel. He also was told he should do so by the attorney general and deputy attorney general. Yet, he relied on two highly controversial opinions written by a small office in the Justice Department.

Over those two years, Mueller could have asked his superiors for a decision on this alleged policy barring any conclusions on criminal conduct. More importantly, he could have requested an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. That is what the Office of Legal Counsel does, particularly when its own opinions are the cause of confusion.

Mueller knows this. Why is he acting like a new hire fresh out of law school? He was the director of the FBI. Now he wants us to believe that he didn’t understand how main Justice functions? That’s insulting.

It’s also what political hatchet men do. Barr stung Mueller when he informed Mueller that special counsels weren’t hired to conduct Congress’s investigations. If Congress wants to investigate impeachment, they’re supposed to pay for the investigation. They’re also suppose to hire the investigators. Democrats insist that Mueller’s team was there to do their investigation. Democrats shouldn’t be taken seriously. They’re weasels, just like Mueller is.

Alan Dershowitz has a great idea on special counsels:

Restructuring the DOJ to include a special counsel’s unit is, potentially, a great idea. Otherwise, the special counsel needs to go the way of the passenger pigeon. Also, Mueller can go to hell if he thinks he served honorably as special counsel.

Gregg Jarrett’s opinion piece reached a stunning conclusion when Jarrett said “The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.”

When Jim Comey announced that he wouldn’t indict Hillary Clinton, he first said that HRC had done some illegal things. Then he finished by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against HRC. Back then, there were howls from the legal community, saying that the DOJ speaks in indictments. They don’t list things that a person did that were shady but that, in the end, the person wasn’t a criminal. Here’s Comey’s press conference ‘exonerating’ HRC:

Today’s performance by Bob Mueller was Act II of Jim Comey’s disgraceful exoneration of HRC. Mueller included in his report 10 instances of President Trump obstructing justice. In each of those instances, Mueller didn’t make a decision. Notice that I didn’t say that he didn’t indict. I said that Mueller refused to even make a decision.

Instead, in each of these instances, Mueller made the case for and against indicting President Trump of obstruction of justice. Then he essentially said that it was up to Congress to make the final decision. By comparison, when Kenneth Starr issued his report, he noted that then-President Clinton had committed 11 crimes, 6 of which were obstruction of justice charges.

Starr didn’t indict Clinton. He merely told the House of Representatives that Clinton had committed those crimes. Jarrett continues:

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion. If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent. In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report.

Again, Mueller’s thinking is out-of-step with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights presumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. According to Mueller’s thinking, Trump was guilty until he was exonerated. That’s bassackwards and then some.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Today is a sad day for the rule of law. Today, a special counsel decided he had the right to ignore the Bill of Rights. Today, a special counsel thought he was Jim Comey’s stand-in.

When it comes to tormented logic, it’s difficult to find ‘logic’ more tormented than Jim Comey’s logic. Tuesday, Mr. Comey wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that sounded totally defensive.

In his op-ed, Mr. Comey wrote “The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield. But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, they will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations.”

Mr. Comey, you’re either a sanctimonious egotist or you’re too stupid to be the director of the FBI. It’s sad to think that someone this warped was once the director of the world’s premier law enforcement agency. Let’s get Trey Gowdy straighten him out on Mr. Comey’s allegations:

Democrats have started their whisper campaign, asking ‘what happens if they investigate this and it comes up empty? Will Republicans accept that outcome?’ That’s the definition of a whisper campaign. That won’t happen this time because serious people like Trey Gowdy, John Ratcliffe and Lindsey Graham have seen the documents that will be declassified.

That’s entirely different than Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “more than circumstantial”:

The truth is that nobody has seen this phantom evidence. The Mueller team of investigators and prosecutors didn’t find it. If they had, they would’ve prosecuted the people involved. That didn’t happen.

The truth is that Mssrs. Gowdy, Graham and Ratcliffe are honest people of integrity. Mr. Schiff is a political hack with a high security clearance.

Mr. Comey has written op-ed after op-ed, done townhalls, during which he’s said things that weren’t credible. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that he was trying to poison potential jurors with his antics and propaganda. Innocent people don’t act defense attorneys like Mr. Comey is doing. Mr. Comey is protesting too much.

Now that AG William Barr is investigating whether President Obama’s political appointees acted improperly in starting the surveillance into Carter Page, the same suspects (literally) are resurfacing with the same discredited excuses. Byron York’s article asks all the right pointed questions.

The article, though, starts by saying “In February 2018, the House Intelligence Committee released the so-called Nunes memo. In four pages, the document, from the committee’s then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed much of what the public knows today about the FBI’s reliance on the Steele dossier in pursuing since-discredited allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election. Specifically, it revealed that the FBI included unverified material from the dossier in applications to a secret spy court to win a warrant to wiretap Trump foreign policy volunteer adviser Carter Page. All that was classified. To release it, the committee appealed to President Trump, who made a declassification order. That is the only way Americans know about the Page warrant. From that knowledge came later revelations about the FBI’s use of confidential informants and undercover agents to get information on Trump campaign figures.”

Now the same doomsayers are back predicting more gloom:

Now, some of the same people are issuing somber warnings of the damage that will be done if Attorney General William Barr declassifies documents showing what else the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies did in the 2016 Trump investigation.

I’m shocked to hear Brennan, Clapper and Comey are using alarmist tones about exposing national security secrets. Coming from them, it rings hollow. Byron York explains in this interview:

We’ve heard this refrain before. Yes, we should handle this information with the greatest of care. No, we shouldn’t trust the most untrustable trio of partisan hacks in US intelligence history.

Earlier tonight, President Trump “ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into ‘surveillance activities’ directed at the president’s 2016 campaign.”

Let the finger-pointing begin. Comey, Clapper and Brennan are already attempting to incriminate each other. In the end, I suspect that they’ll each be ‘successful’, with each of them getting prosecuted and convicted or getting prosecuted and flipping on the other 2. Either way, the chances of this turning out well for that trio isn’t high.

Let’s get serious about this for a minute. Democrat spinmeisters point to the DOJ’s IG report and insist that it’s a comprehensive report on the origins of the faux investigation. It isn’t because it isn’t exhaustive. It can’t reach the places that the AG’s investigation can get to. First, the IG can’t call in people from all of the IC agencies. It’s limited by statute to the agency it’s assigned to.

Next, the IG can’t interview people who worked inside the DOJ but have since left. That means the IG can’t interview the central figures in the investigation. Specifically, it prohibits the IG from interviewing Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok and Page. Ditto with Clapper and Brennan.

Trump also gave Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as “spying” on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference.

Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully” cooperate with the investigation at Barr’s own request. “Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” Sanders said.

This gives Attorney General Barr wide latitude to investigate the investigators. Last Sunday, Trey Gowdy made a rather interesting prediction during Maria Bartiromo’s show:

Considering the fact that Trey Gowdy a) has seen these documents and b) is one of the most honest people to ever serve in Congress, I’m betting that there’s some former employees of the FBI and the IC who should be exceptionally worried.