Tag Archives: FBI

The Last, Best Hope, by Robert Gore

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long.

Donald Trump’s candidacy posed problems for the government and its string-pullers. It repudiated their rule and vision, especially their foreign policy. Trump threatened a bipartisan consensus based on US global dominance and interventionism they had championed since World War II. He proposed improving relations with Russia and questioned the orthodoxy that had embroiled the US in conflicts across the Middle East and Northern Africa. Perpetual conflict has been the fountainhead for the Deep State’s funding and steady accretion of power.

Trump also posed a more immediate threat. As president, he would have access to troves of information, some of which could reveal skeletons in the establishment’s closet. His Attorney General would have the power to investigate and prosecute. Those dangers may well have been the primary cause of establishment hostility.

However, the powers that be didn’t expect Trump’s victory, one reason their response has been so weak. The FBI, NSA, CIA and the other agencies considered part of the intelligence community (IC), operate in the dark, away from journalistic, public, and political scrutiny. To mount its offensive against Trump, the IC had to emerge from the shadows.

The kind of lies used through the years to preserve “plausible deniability” and deflect potential oversight and investigation have proven too flimsy to stand up to serious scrutiny. Skepticism, probing questions, and debunking did not come from the mainstream media, a reliable Deep State ally, but from the alternative media and Trump’s supporters.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the IC has unlimited access to communications and computer networks. The IC or its corporate partners store these information streams. Before he left office, Barack Obama signed an executive order making it easier for the IC to share this data amongst its agencies. Yet with all this information and potential collaboration, after over a year of allegations and investigations, the IC has produced nothing to substantiate its claim of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the election.

As if to highlight this lack of hard evidence, on January 6 of this year an Intelligence Community Assessment, commissioned by Obama, was released purporting to be the consensus view of all 17 US intelligence agencies. It wasn’t, it was the views of a small group of “hand-picked” (phrase used by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper) analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The 25-page report had neither direct evidence nor proof, only an assessment, “based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” (The quote is from the assessment.)

Not only was the information “incomplete or fragmentary,” some of it was pure fiction, emanating from Fusion GPS’s Trump Dossier, much of which has been subsequently discredited. That dossier, an attempt to generate “dirt” on Trump, his campaign, and their connections to Russia, was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In retrospect, that the three agencies would use unverified information from a compromised source as one of the primary bases of its assessment sent a clear message: we’ve got nothing.

Wikileaks obtained and disseminated over 40,000 DNC emails starting July 22, 2016. Many of the emails embarrassed the DNC and Hillary Clinton. It was alleged that Russia had hacked the emails and given them to Wikileaks. It was that allegation that got the ball rolling on the Russian influence story.

It was only a year later that the Veteran Intelligence for Sanity (VIPS) challenged the technical basis for the hacking claim. Forensically examining metadata from the intrusion into the DNC server, the VIPS concluded that the emails could not have been remotely hacked. The DNC data was copied at a speed far exceeding the internet’s capability. It had to have been downloaded on site to an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC server. That conclusion has mostly been ignored by the mainstream media but has not been challenged. It completely undermines the Russian hacking allegation, the wellspring of “Russiagate.”

As one Russian influence story wanes, two others wax. The 2010 Uranium One sale to a subsidiary of Russian company Rosatom reeks of impropriety on the part of Russian operatives, Uranium One, the Clintons, the FBI, the Attorney General at the time, Eric Holder, and the Justice Department (see “The Rout Is On,” SLL).

The Fusion GPS Trump Dossier appears to be a grab bag of unsubstantiated allegations compiled by former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele. He claims they came from contacts developed when he was head of the Russia desk at MI6, British intelligence. (see “How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier‘”) Whether they did or not, none of the allegations have been proven true and some have been disproved. The “information” may have actually been Russian disinformation, or lies.

A thread running through these stories is IC involvement and culpability, particularly the FBI. Robert Mueller headed the FBI during the Russian nuclear investigation, which began in 2008. The results of the bureau’s investigation was either not made available to the foreign investment committee or was ignored and the Uranium One sale went through.

Mueller protegé and friend James Comey, former head of the FBI, relied on the Trump dossier to justify extensive investigation and surveillance of Trump’s team before and after the election. He has admitted that it was, in part, the basis of the IC’s January 2017 assessment, although Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement shortly after it was released stating that the IC had made no determination of its reliability.

Comey’s behavior is part of a larger pattern: he consistently acted to further the political aims of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Well before the FBI had interviewed several key witness in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including Clinton, he began drafting a statement exonerating her. During the investigation, the FBI gave immunity to key Clinton aides and did not require them to turn over their computers.

After Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch’s July 27, 2016 meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac, the FBI was unconcerned with whether or not anything improper had transpired, but was quite concerned with who leaked the meeting to the press. Nine days later, Comey announced his decision not to charge Clinton. The FBI has stonewalled a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to that meeting since July of last year. Those documents have now surfaced and reveal the FBI’s investigative focus.

When the DNC claimed that it had been hacked, it denied the FBI access to its computer servers. Despite not having conducting its own investigation of the servers, the FBI and the rest of the IC accepted the conclusion of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Inc., hired by the DNC, that the servers had been hacked by two separate hacker groups employed by the Russian government. CrowdStrike was founded by “Russian-born Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow at the NATO-funded, intensely Russophobic Atlantic Council.” Its work was subsequently discredited.

Comey is not the only one who was or remains in the FBI’s upper echelon who have demonstrated clear conflicts of interest. Agent Peter Strzok, changed the description of Clinton’s behavior in Comey’s email exoneration from “grossly negligent,” which carries criminal liability, to “extremely careless,” which does not. He was demoted for anti-Trump text messages to his mistress, also an FBI employee. The FBI, Justice Department, and Robert Mueller were aware of the texts for months and deliberately withheld them from Congress.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was involved with the Clinton email investigation. His wife ran for the Virginia state senate and received $700,000 in campaign contributions from political groups aligned with Clinton and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe. Comey was briefed on those ties and despite the obvious conflict of interest, did nothing.

Robert Mueller’s team is also compromised. Mr. Mueller’s deputy, Andrew Weissmann, was the FBI’s lead on the Trump probe. Many of his attorneys come from Obama’s Department of Justice. Nine of the fifteen publicly identified attorneys are Democratic donors, and several donated to the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Attorney Jeannie Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against racketeering charges, and represented Clinton personally in the email investigation. Attorney Aaron Zebley represent Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who helped manager her private server. Weissman emailed former acting Attorney General Sally Yates he was “proud and in awe” of her for her defiance against Trump’s travel ban.

As Kimberley A. Strassel noted in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece: “The question isn’t whether these people are legally allowed (under the Hatch Act) to investigate Mr. Trump—as the left keeps insisting. The question is whether a team of declared Democrats is capable of impartially investigating a Republican president.” (“Obstruction of Congress,” WSJ, 12/8/17)

Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for relatively trivial infractions—which he could and should have avoided simply by saying he didn’t remember what he said—and Hillary Clinton’s exoneration demonstrate a gaping difference in legal standards and rigor of investigation between the FBI’s efforts directed against the Trump and Clinton camps. Flynn’s plea, and the charges lodged against Paul Manafort and two campaign aides, are all, so far, that Robert Mueller has to show for his investigation into Russian collusion with Trump and team during the election.

Flynn’s crimes occurred after the election. Manafort, Trump’s campaign chief for two months, was charged with money laundering, not Russian collusion. The closest Mueller has gotten to anything suggesting such collusion is a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos—a tangential figure in the Trump campaign—to lying to the FBI about contacts with intermediaries purportedly linked to Russian intelligence services.

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long. His lawyers need to compile an extensive brief, detailing all of these damning details and developments. The executive summary would be the case Trump makes to the public. Due to political bias, the FBI’s investigations of Clinton’s emails and the charges of Russian influence have been irretrievably compromised. The bias extends to Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Mueller never should have been appointed; he was already compromised by the Uranium One matter. Mueller, the FBI, and Obama holdovers in the Justice Department have repeatedly stonewalled and subverted legitimate congressional requests for documents and testimony.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board has suggested, Mueller should resign. If he doesn’t, Trump should fire him. He should be replaced with someone who has none of the taint that permeates the present investigations. The successor’s investigation should be confined to Mueller’s original mission: investigating alleged Russian collusion with Trump and his team to influence to 2016 election. If, as is likely, nothing is found within six months, wind up the investigation.

Incoming FBI director Christopher Wray must conduct a thorough house-cleaning and refer findings of possible criminal behavior to the Justice Department. The Justice Department itself needs a thorough housecleaning. After which, investigations should be opened or reopened into: Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, Fusion GPS, how WikiLeaks obtained the emails it disseminated, and finally, and most importantly, the FBI, rest of the IC, DNC, Hillary Clinton, and Obama administration’s attempt to nullify a presidential election.

This represents the last, best hope to confront and thwart the Deep State. Trump’s performance as president hasn’t been the disaster many predicted, and he’s repeatedly outmaneuvered his opponents. He’s got the winds of a decent economy and strong stock market at his back. If he doesn’t take the initiative while the Deep State is bleeding from its self-inflicted wounds, the opportunity will vanish. If it does, the Deep State will ensure that no unvetted candidate ever gets near the White House again. Its plunder and destruction of the United States will proceed, renewed and unhindered…until its work is done.

Christmas Is Coming

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

Advertisements

WSJ Editorial Board Calls On “Too Conflicted” Mueller To Step Down

It’s so obvious it can no longer be ignored: Robert Mueller has multiple conflicts of interest that preclude him from conducting a fair investigation of alleged Russian collusion. From the Wall Street Journal editorial board via zerohedge.com:

The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI…

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti-Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

To continue reading: WSJ Editorial Board Calls On “Too Conflicted” Mueller To Step Down

The FBI’s Perjury Trap of the Century, by David Stockman

There has been a great deal of criminal activity surrounding Russiagate, most of it committed by the people who concocted the story and set out to reverse America’s 2016 electoral choice. From David Stockman at antiwar.com:

If you were a Martian visitor just disembarked from of one of Elon Musk’s rocket ships and were therefore uninfected by earth-based fake news, the culprits in Washington’s witch-hunt de jure would be damn obvious.

They include John Brennan, Jim Comey, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok and a passel of deep state operatives – all of whom baldly abused their offices. After Brennan had concocted the whole Russian election meddling meme to sully the Donald’s shocking election win, the latter three holdovers – functioning as a political fifth column in the new Administration – set a perjury trap designed to snare Mike Flynn as a first step in relitigating and reversing the voters’ verdict.

The smoking gun on their guilt is so flamingly obvious that the ability of the Trump-hating media to ignore it is itself a wonder to behold.

After all, anyone fresh off Elon’s rocket ship would learn upon even cursory investigation of the matter that the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts electronically every single communication of the Russian Ambassador with any person on US soil – whether by email, text or phone call.

So the clear-minded visitor’s simple question would be: What do the transcripts say?

In fact, a Martian visitor would also quickly understand that the entire world – friend, rival, foe and enemy, alike – already knows of NSA’s giant digital spying operation owing to Snowden’s leaks, and that therefore there are no “sources and methods” on the SIGINT (signals intelligence) front to protect.

Accordingly, the disinterested Martian would undoubtedly insist: Declassify the NSA intercepts and publish them on Facebook (and, for old timers, on the front page of the New York Times) so that the truth would be known to all.

Of course, that would punch a deep hole in the entire RussiaGate witchhunt because NSA, in fact, did record Flynn’s late December conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. And there was not a single word in them that related to alleged campaign collusion or otherwise inappropriate communications by the incoming national security adviser to a newly-elected President who was three-weeks from inauguration.

To continue reading: The FBI’s Perjury Trap of the Century

 

Obama DOJ Didn’t Bother To Interview FBI Informant Before Filing Charges In Uranium One Scandal, by Tyler Durden

A double standard operates in Washington. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Do you ever get the sense that with certain investigations, primarily those targeting conservatives, the FBI has a tendency to dot every ‘i’, cross every ‘t’ and pursue charges at all costs, no matter how minor, but with others (think Hillary’s email scandal) even the most glaring violations of federal law seem to go unpunished?

For example, compare and contrast the Flynn charges versus how the Hillary email investigation was conducted by the Comey-led FBI.  On the one hand, Flynn held perfectly legal conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States AFTER the U.S. presidential election, a common practice for presidential transition teams, yet for some inexplicable reason, probably having something to do with fears of being charged with a bogus ‘Logan Act’ violation in Mueller’s Russian collusion witch hunt, decided to lie about them during interviews with the FBI.  As a result of his lies, Flynn has now plead guilty to two counts of false statements, has been ruined financially by mounting legal bills and could end up serving jail time.

On the other hand, compare that outcome to the Hillary email scandal where there is tangible evidence and first-hand testimony that Hillary and her team knowingly violated a Congressional subpoena by deleting 33,000 emails, habitually destroyed evidence with hammers so it could never be recovered and routinely compromised American national security interests by sending “Top Secret” communications via unsecured channels…something that Comey originally defined at “gross negligence” even though he later changed his language to “extreme carelessness” to assure that Hillary could never be pursued with criminal charges.  So what were the punishments for all those federal crimes?  Well, rather than pursue charges against Hillary and/or various members of her staff the FBI decided to “hand out immunity deals like candy.”

Now, in just the latest bit of evidence that the Justice department has been politically compromised, we learn from John Solomon of The Hill that the DOJ didn’t even bother to interview a key FBI informant before filing criminal charges in the Uranium One scandal back in 2014.

While he was Maryland’s chief federal prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office failed to interview the undercover informant in the FBI’s Russian nuclear bribery case before it filed criminal charges in the case in 2014, officials told The Hill.

 

To continue reading: Obama DOJ Didn’t Bother To Interview FBI Informant Before Filing Charges In Uranium One Scandal

Dismissed FBI Agent Is One Who Changed Hillary Email Scandal Language From “Grossly Negligent” To “Extremely Careless”, by Tyler Durden

How long do Robert Mueller and his team want to keep making idiots of themselves? From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s top FBI investigator into ‘Russian meddling’, agent Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital affair with).

Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:

Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI “agent’s role in Clinton probe under review.” Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge.

Report: “ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE” Now it all starts to make sense!

Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation.  And wouldn’t you know it, as CNN has apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in Comey’s final statement to describe her email abuses as “extremely careless” rather than the original language of “grossly negligent.”

A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey’s description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” the source said.
The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter.

But the news of Strzok’s direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.

To continue reading: Dismissed FBI Agent Is One Who Changed Hillary Email Scandal Language From “Grossly Negligent” To “Extremely Careless”

Republicans Prepare For War With FBI, DOJ: To File Contempt Action Over Anti-Trump Bias, by Tyler Durden

Here is yet another instance where the FBI fought very hard not to disclose documents that it was under a duty to disclose. From Tyler Durden at zero hedge.com:

Five weeks ago, House Speaker Paul Ryan accused the DOJ and FBI of “stonewalling” the House Intelligence Committee’s wide-ranging subpoena for all pertinent information about how the largely unsubstantiated “Trump dossier” played into the DOJ’s decision to launch the infamous Trump collusion investigation. At the time, the speaker said the agency was preparing to turn over the information requested by the committee, but despite his assurances, the promised documents never materialized.

Then yesterday, thanks to a series of coordinated media leaks, Nunes learned – at the same time as the broader public – about the reassignment of Peter Strzok, a senior Mueller aide who had played a critical role in the DOJ’s original collusion investigation. And before that, Strzok helped lead the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

As it turns out, the agent had been reassigned for expressing anti-Trump sentiments in a series of text messages to FBI attorney Lisa Page while the two were having an affair. The bureau, it appears, had willfully tried to conceal this fact from Nunes and his committee.

Upon being blindsided with this information and publicly embarassed, the Intel committee chairman was understandably less than pleased. So in a statement issued Sunday, Nunes announced a serious escalation: His committee, he said, is preparing to hold Andrew McCabe and assistant AG Rod Rosenstein in contempt for the DOJ’s failure to comply with Nunes’s subpoena.

Strzok was reassigned in July, shortly before Nunes issued the request for the bureau to turn over all documents relating to the Trump dossier. In a transparent attempt to save face, the bureau contacted Nnes shortly after the Strzok news broke on Saturday to say they were ready to comply with the subpoena. But Nunes rightly repudiated this offer, saying it was too little, too late. He laid out his argument for preparing the order of contempt in a statement released Sunday offering details of the committee’s unsuccessful push to convince the FBI to turn over the documents it had requested.

To continue reading: Republicans Prepare For War With FBI, DOJ: To File Contempt Action Over Anti-Trump Bias

More Hillary Chronicles, by Andrew P. Napolitano

There is no way that Hillary Clinton should not be investigated. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

The Department of Justice will soon commence an investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation (you read that nonsense correctly) of a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation and a company called Uranium One. It appears that FBI decisions made during the time that Hillary Clinton was being investigated for espionage will also be investigated to see whether there should be an investigation to determine whether she was properly investigated. (Again, you read that nonsense correctly.)

Only the government can relate nonsense with a straight face. Here is the back story.

When President Donald Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey last spring, the attorney general’s stated purpose for recommending the firing was Comey’s dropping the ball in the investigation of Clinton’s email when she was secretary of state. After a year of investigating her use of her own computer servers to transmit and store classified materials instead of using a government server to do so — and notwithstanding a mountain of evidence of her grossly negligent exposure of secret and top-secret materials, which constitutes the crime of espionage — the FBI director decided that because no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, it should be dropped. Weeks later, the DOJ ratified Comey’s decision.

At the same time that Clinton was failing to safeguard state secrets, she was granting official State Department favors to donors to her family’s charitable foundation. There are dozens of examples of this so-called “pay to play,” the most egregious of which is the Uranium One case. This involved a Canadian businessman and friend of former President Bill Clinton’s, Frank Giustra, who bundled donations from various sources that totaled $148 million, all of which Giustra gave to the Clinton Foundation.

To continue reading: More Hillary Chronicles