Tag Archives: FBI

Moon-Strzok No More, Lisa Page Spills the Beans, by Ray McGovern

It must have been a bad break-up; Lisa turns on Peter. From Ray McGovern at consortiumnews.com:

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.

Strzok’s apparent admission to Page about there being “no big there there” was reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page’s closed door interview.

Strzok’s text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some “there” — preferably a big “there” — but had failed miserably. If Solomon’s sources are accurate, it is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The “no there there” text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn’t there.

Strzok during his public testimony earlier this month.

Robert Parry, the late founder and editor of Consortium News whom Solomon described to me last year as his model for journalistic courage and professionalism, was already able to discern as early as March 2017 the outlines of what is now Deep State-gate, and, typically, was the first to dare report on its implications.

To continue reading: Moon-Strzok No More, Lisa Page Spills the Beans

Advertisements

Carter Page FISA Application Exposes Flimsy Underpinnings Of FBI “Witch Hunt”, by Tyler Durden

Although the FBI keeps denying it, apparently the FISA application and renewals to spy on Carter Page were lifted straight from the Trump dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

The Saturday release of the FBI’s heavily redacted FISA warrant application for Carter Page reveals that the Obama administration, eager to make a case to spy on a US citizen (and arguably the Trump campaign) cobbled together a combination of facts and innuendo from Page’s business dealings in Russia, several press reports of varying reliability, and of course, the infamous Clinton-funded “Steele Dossier,” which the FBI went to great lengths to justify despite being largely unable to verify its claims.

Perhaps the most concerning takeaway, however, is the stark disconnect between the FBI’s multiple allegations against Page versus the fact that he hasn’t been charged with a single crime after nearly two years of DOJ/FBI investigations.

Once issued, the FISA warrant and its subsequent renewals allowed the Obama administration to better spy on the Trump campaign using a wide investigatory net. As such, the October, 2016 application painted Page in the most criminal light possible, as intended, in order to convince the FISA judge to grant the warrant. It flat out accuses Page of being a Russian spy who was recruited by the Kremlin, which sought to “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law,” the application reads.

In order to reinforce their argument, the FBI presented various claims from the dossier as facts, such as “The FBI learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials” – when in fact that was simply another unverified claim from the dossier.

Another approach used to beef up the FISA application’s curb appeal was circular evidence, via the inclusion of a letter from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to former FBI Director James Comey, citing information Reid got from John Brennan, which was in turn from the Clinton-funded dossier.

To continue reading: Carter Page FISA Application Exposes Flimsy Underpinnings Of FBI “Witch Hunt”

 

3 Key Takeaways From The Disastrous Strzok Hearing, by Jon Hall

If you drill down into Peter Strzok’s testimony from his hearing before Congress, there are at least three issues of potential criminality that must be further investigated. From Jon Hall at fmshooter.com:

Last Thursday, embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok testified and was questioned by members of the House during a publicly broadcast hearing that spanned for more than ten hours.

Largely, the hearing was partisan posturing from both sides – with the Republicans grilling Strzok over his text messages to and from FBI mistress Lisa Page and the Democrats widely supporting and applauding Strzok’s fiery defiance.

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) even went so far as to suggest Strzok deserved a purple heart for enduring the GOP’s treatment of him at the hearing. 

Despite the limitless posturing – a few key questions were answered in the lengthy ten hours…

How Clinton’s charge of using a private home e-mail server went from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”?

Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) inquired how the wording of a statement condemning Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server was changed before it was even issued.

Strzok, who led the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal e-mail server, rephrased the charge of Clinton’s actions from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in a draft of the FBI’s statement that was publicly issued by then-FBI Director, James Comey.

However, Strzok argued that the revision was introduced by the FBI’s legal counsel, who noted that “gross negligence” carried a specific legal meaning with specific legal implications.

When Sensenbrenner asked why the change had been made, Strzok explained:

With regard to that decision, there was concern within the perspective of a legal definition of that term that people would draw an inference based on that use that it was necessarily talking a specific subset of a statute…

Sensenbrenner’s reply? “That rates four Pinocchios”.  

Were Clinton’s e-mails sent to a “foreign entity”?

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) revealed that virtually all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails were sent to a foreign entity and the FBI didn’t bother to follow-up on the finding.

Gohmert detailed:

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker… to brief you [Strzok]… about an anomaly they had found with Hillary Clinton’s e-mails… When they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails – every single one except four – over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list… To an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia…

To continue reading: 3 Key Takeaways From The Disastrous Strzok Hearing

After The Strzok Stonewall: WSJ Says Trump Should Declassify This To Expose The Truth, by Tyler Durden

The only meaningful step closer to the truth concerning FBI and Department of Justice’s depredations in the Clinton and Trump investigations will come when Trump declassifies documents in their possession. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

While the left and the liberal media desperately defended ‘FBI lovebird’ Peter Strzok this week as he came under attack from a rightly angry ‘right’ over the level of cognitive dissonance required to ignore his text expletions and ‘assume’ no bias, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel was carefully observing and asking ‘awkward’ questions…

But it is the full Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal that today’s lays out the path ahead, after Strzok’s stonewalling – Here’s what Trump should declassify if he wants the truth known

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

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

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

To continue reading: After The Strzok Stonewall: WSJ Says Trump Should Declassify This To Expose The Truth

Trump Should Fire Rosenstein Immediately, by Paul Craig Roberts

Rod Rosenstein is a political hack who’s out to get Trump and protect the Department of Justice and the FBI. Firing him would indeed be the right thing for Trump to do. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

Does Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly hacking Hillary’s emails and interfering in the US election have any purpose other than to throw a monkey wrench in President Trump’s upcoming summit with Putin?

Don’t forget that Rosenstein is implicated in the orchestration of Russiagate as a weapon against Trump, a weapon that serves the interests of the Democratic Party and the military/security complex about which President Eisenhower warned us 56 years ago to no avail. Rosenstein’s indictment of 12 Russians for allegedly hacking computers is a political indictment aimed at President Trump. The indictment is otherwise pointless as the Russian government will certainly not turn over its military personnel to a Washington kangaroo court. The indictment serves no purpose except to poison the atmosphere of the summit.

If you read the indictment, you will see that it consists of nothing but improbable accusations. There is no way on earth that the US Justice (sic) Department would be able to acquire the information in this fictional story that Rosenstein has presented. Moreover, there is no sign whatsoever of any evidence in the indictment. Rosenstein knows that he needs no evidence, because the accused will never be brought to trial. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/13/rosenstein-says-12-russian-intel-officers-indicted-in-special-counsels-probe.html

Rosenstein has thrown red meat to the presstitutes, who are assets of the military/security complex and Democratic Party, and the presstitutes will pressure the Republicans to get behind Rosenstein’s call for a united front against Russian interference. You can imagine what would happen if Trump and Putin were to have a successful summit and normalize the relations that Washington ruined between the two countries. If your imagination is not working, consult here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/10/the-view-of-russia-in-the-west-paul-craig-roberts/

During the presidential election campaign, I pointed out that Trump was not Washington savvy, did not know who would support his positions, which were antithetical to the interests of powerful interest groups such as the military-security complex and global offshoring corporations, and that Trump ran the risk of being destroyed by his own appointments.

Rod Rosenstein is a Trump appointment. Moreover when Trump’s Attorney General ordered Rosenstein’s resignation, Trump refused to accept it and kept Rosenstein in office. Trump’s miscalculation is so enormously wrong that he deserves the knife in the back that Rosenstein just delivered.

To continue reading: Trump Should Fire Rosenstein Immediately

Did Sen. Warner and Comey ‘Collude’ on Russia-gate? by Ray McGovern

This story deserves far more attention than it’s getting. From Ray McGovern at consortiumnews.com:

The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.

An explosive report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday’s edition of The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing “technical evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]” in the controversial leak of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials would have given Assange “limited immunity” to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit through redactions “some classified CIA information he might release in the future,” according to Solomon, who cited “interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate investigators.” Solomon even provided a copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.

But Comey’s intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal, Solomon says, quoting “multiple sources.” With the prospective agreement thrown into serious doubt, Assange “unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare capabilities for a long time to come.” These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks “a hostile intelligence service.”

Solomon’s report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.

Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)

The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to  “provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases,” Solomon quotes WikiLeaks’ intermediary with the government as saying.  It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks’ source of the DNC emails.

If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak.

The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.

To continue reading: Did Sen. Warner and Comey ‘Collude’ on Russia-gate?

Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President, by Peter Van Buren

Peter Van Buren identifies the most important conclusion to emerge from Michael Horowitz’s report. From Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:

It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI’s Clinton email investigation really means.

While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this: the FBI influenced the election of a president.

In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who previously worked on the 2012 study of “Fast and Furious”), opened his probe into the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the presidential campaign. Horowitz’s focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding Russiagate.

In a damning passage, the 568 page report found it “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors… for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey’s drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. “Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem… and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment.” Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further “created public confusion and didn’t adequately address the situation.”

The report also criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts “brought discredit” to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one exchange that read, “Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Another Strzok document stated “we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least one secret message.”

To continue reading: Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President