Release The Memo
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Calling him a liar makes you something that starts with the letter "R".
Realist.
Well done.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Back on Jan 16, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte made request directly to the FISA Court for all the documents that underlie the Page FISA Warrants. Hopefully it means we will all get to see this stuff. If so, it should quickly render Adams Schiff's Memo moot. His letter was sent to Rosemary Collyer who is the Presiding FISA Court Judge.
Collyer is no shrinking violet. She has once already written a long opinion (based on reports by NSA Director Mike Rogers and DOJ admissions) that outlined the intentional abuse and misrepresentations to the FISA Court within the FISA-702 process. And she also had some strong admonitions for the Obama Admins duplicitous use of the FISA court. The opinion was later declassified
I am shocked by media reports that the FBI may have relied upon an unsubstantiated ‘dossier’ which makes ‘salacious and unverified’ claims against President Trump.
“As the Presiding Judge of the FISC, you must be similarly concerned that the Executive Branch allegedly used an unverified dossier as evidence showing probable cause that someone connected with the Trump campaign, Carter Page, was an agent of a foreign power.”
“As the Presiding Judge of the FISC, you must be similarly concerned that the Executive Branch allegedly used an unverified dossier as evidence showing probable cause that someone connected with the Trump campaign, Carter Page, was an agent of a foreign power.”
Collyer is no shrinking violet. She has once already written a long opinion (based on reports by NSA Director Mike Rogers and DOJ admissions) that outlined the intentional abuse and misrepresentations to the FISA Court within the FISA-702 process. And she also had some strong admonitions for the Obama Admins duplicitous use of the FISA court. The opinion was later declassified
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Ahem, the WSJ reported thd texts were a reference to the Russia election meddling. Obama met with Putin 2 days after the these texts. The HRC email investigation was done until they discovered the email on Weiner's laptop on 9/28. That story filled a full day of airtime for Foxnews, presumably helping them avoid any mention of Rob Porter.
Why screw up a good political narrative with context?
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08...e-fbi-stories-yesterday/#.Wnxnlvbl06p.twitter
"But this explanation isn’t as airtight as reporters all agreed it was. For one, Obama adamantly declared on national television that he never got involved in any FBI investigation at any time for any reason. You can watch him here. Asked if he’d pressure the FBI on the Hillary Clinton case, he responded: “I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. I guarantee it.”
That Strzok was drafting the talking points about Russia is again reasonable. He was running the investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and Russia, having launched that investigation in July, if not earlier informally. Let me quote CNN from last month, “As a leading counterintelligence expert, Strzok was also involved in opening the investigation into ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives.”
And if the President of the United States wanted to know everything about Strzok’s investigation into Trump and Russia, he’s the president and can do that, even if that contradicts his televised claims.
Now, a reasonable and even mildly curious press corps would start to have some synapses firing. Hmm. President Obama was briefed by Comey on an ongoing investigation into Russia’s election meddling. He wanted to know everything. Was he told everything? Was he told about the focus on the Trump campaign? Was he told about the dossier? Was he told about the source and funding of the dossier? Was he not told about the focus of Strzok’s investigation?
But instead of a curious press corps, we have folks like Aaron Blake, who made an earlier appearance. You will no doubt be surprised to learn he thinks there’s just nothing to worry about whatsoever — nothing to even look into, really — about a text regarding Obama wanting to “know everything” about a Russia probe that we’ve been told was focused on Trump since at least July 2016, calling it “dubious.” Of the notion a text about Obama’s involvement in a briefing suggesting, well, personal involvement, Blake said it “doesn’t make sense.”
Oliver Darcy, a media reporter at CNN, is similarly incurious. In a series of tweets, he explained that the real story was that Fox News wasn’t skeptical enough about the Senate Homeland Security Committee report’s claim that the “potus wants to know everything” text was about the Hillary email investigation when anonymous sources claim it was about the Russia election meddling investigation that was laser-focused on the Trump campaign and therefore case closed, nothing to see here. His story is headlined, “Right-wing media obsesses over FBI text message story; hours later it’s debunked.”
Now, if you accept anonymous sources as the voice of God, it’s true that the Wall Street Journal “debunked” the notion that Obama might have talked to an FBI director about an investigation into Hillary Clinton. But in the place of that claim, the anonymous sources broke the news that Obama was talking to an FBI director about an investigation into Trump’s campaign working with Russia to meddle in an election. Some debunking!
Some might say that the news Obama was briefed on Strzok’s pending Trump-Russia investigation is about a million times more interesting than the report he was being briefed on the Clinton probe months after Comey let her off. Darcy uses anonymous sources to say that Obama didn’t want to know “everything” about the Russia investigation so much as “nothing much”:"
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
More rats are jumping the ship
Or, roaches scurrying away from the light
Or, maybe just people cutting deals to save their butts?
I suppose it could be complete coincidence that these next two were mentioned in the Strzok-page texts, right? LOL The truth is they are leaving under duress and likely/hopefully facing legal consequence for their improper acts -- which include the phoney FISA application and obstruction of justice in the Hillary email probe.
The first is David Laughman
Here is how the anti-Trump Hugh Hewitt described this move -
From one of my long time (but now retired) AUSA pals:
"David Laufman resignation is a big deal. As Dep Assist AG for National Security Division, he was the Primary Supervisor over counter Intelligence work in Nat Sec. He would have had a hand in the approval of the FISA application on Page.
"He likely had a role in the decision[-]making on the Clinton email investigation since his section handled cases involving leaks of classified information. The decisions on granting immunity, and allowing conditions to be attached to the examination of computers, would have come from his office. I do not think those were conditions that the FBI would have wanted. On the immunity issue, FBI wouldn't have the authority – that could ... come from [only] the prosecutors in Nat Sec.
"The press reporting is that he offered his resignation yesterday, effective IMMEDIATELY. "That's what happens when you are told that your are the subject of an OPR or OIG investigation.
"He was in the post since 2014 – under Carlin, Yates, and Lynch in the chain of command."
"David Laufman resignation is a big deal. As Dep Assist AG for National Security Division, he was the Primary Supervisor over counter Intelligence work in Nat Sec. He would have had a hand in the approval of the FISA application on Page.
"He likely had a role in the decision[-]making on the Clinton email investigation since his section handled cases involving leaks of classified information. The decisions on granting immunity, and allowing conditions to be attached to the examination of computers, would have come from his office. I do not think those were conditions that the FBI would have wanted. On the immunity issue, FBI wouldn't have the authority – that could ... come from [only] the prosecutors in Nat Sec.
"The press reporting is that he offered his resignation yesterday, effective IMMEDIATELY. "That's what happens when you are told that your are the subject of an OPR or OIG investigation.
"He was in the post since 2014 – under Carlin, Yates, and Lynch in the chain of command."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The other official henchman who is stepping down is Michael P. Kortan
Kortan is a longtime associate of Comey
He was head of the FBI's public affairs office
Looks like he played a key role in covering up Hillary's crimes in her handling of classified emails, by concealing them from the public. He publicly sold what we all now know for certain was a cursory, rubber stamp of the Hillary probe as a "valid investigation."
He is the "Mike" here -- FBI Asst Director of Public Affairs
The other folks named are --
"Jim" is James Baker, FBI Chief Legal Counsel -- removed from office in Jan
"Dave" is David Laufman, DOJ – National Security Division, Deputy AG in charge of counterintelligence -- see above
"Trisha" is Trish Beth Anderson, FBI's Office of Legal Counsel
Do you still think there was nothing going on here?
Combined witht he earlier names (see above post), this is a large chunk of upper management of the DOJ/FBI. What these people did was to engage in a conspiracy to suppress evidence from the public prior to the election. They were attempting to fix the outcome of a democratic election.
Kortan is a longtime associate of Comey
He was head of the FBI's public affairs office
Looks like he played a key role in covering up Hillary's crimes in her handling of classified emails, by concealing them from the public. He publicly sold what we all now know for certain was a cursory, rubber stamp of the Hillary probe as a "valid investigation."
He is the "Mike" here -- FBI Asst Director of Public Affairs
The other folks named are --
"Jim" is James Baker, FBI Chief Legal Counsel -- removed from office in Jan
"Dave" is David Laufman, DOJ – National Security Division, Deputy AG in charge of counterintelligence -- see above
"Trisha" is Trish Beth Anderson, FBI's Office of Legal Counsel
Do you still think there was nothing going on here?
Combined witht he earlier names (see above post), this is a large chunk of upper management of the DOJ/FBI. What these people did was to engage in a conspiracy to suppress evidence from the public prior to the election. They were attempting to fix the outcome of a democratic election.
Oh, I'm sure there are a few here that could spin this.
Listen, these morons were trying to impress the new president who was a shoe-in to win. Well, they picked the wrong horse and now there is hell to pay. If they don’t like political retribution, then don’t play politics. This is why Comey is a ******* degenerate. He is like a child who is engaging in rough play and then complains when he gets hurts. Give me a ******* break.
Comey clearly tried to play both sides - publicly tearing HRC a new one and basically saying she's guilty and then coming up with a phony rationale to justify not recommending prosecution. It wasn't a smart move, because he was tarnished with the sleaziness of Democratic partisan politics. However, by trying to publicly condemn HRC while letting her off the hook, he pretty much ensured that he'd be marginalized even if she had won.
I don't envy his situation. DoJ should never have put the decision on him, because that's their job, not his. However, the principled move for him would have been to either recommend prosecution and be ok with whatever happens or to simply refuse to play their game and make no recommendation either way.
Agreed. Two things: He should have known Trump was going to win (LOL). Second, if you decided that you can’t play both ways, pick a side and live with the consequences. Comey is a ******* rat. I get the impression that he is one of those fast risers who never experienced a crappy boss or a jerk coworker. I have. It was painful at the time but I learned a lot. If I lost my job cause I made mistakes or I misread the situation or I was not able to handle the stress of a difficult decision, then I would not whine on the way out. ******* weasel.
Last edited:
Lol. Lots of f-bombs. Pretty unusual for you.
A fast riser? Sorta depends on what you mean. He started out as an associate with a big corporate law firm. It's the kind of job in which you make a good salary but work terrible hours and do pretty uninteresting work - basically the stuff that partners and more senior associates don't want to do. He moved from that to the US Attorney's Office. I'm sure he got paid less but probably had a lot more free time and enjoyed the work much more. Once there, I'm sure he did rise fast. He was pretty good at what he did. However, he didn't really become a political actor until Bush made him a full US Attorney (meaning he had a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation), and by then he had been with DoJ for a good 12 years or longer. After a few years, he went back to the private sector but with a much more desirable gig that pair him a fortune. Of course, after making more money than he'll ever spend, he became FBI director. So I'd call him a fast riser once he be scored his first political gig, but he did put in his time before that.
When Comey got fired, I got in touch with my FBI buddy. He's not a political player, but he's a senior official - worked directly for Comey and knows him personally. His take was interesting. He was a big Comey fan - thought he was a good director, a good leader, and thought he tried to do the right thing without regard to political affiliation. Interestingly, he hated how Comey got fired more than the fact that he got fired. (He also did not think Trump fired him to stop the Russia investigation.) Apparently, Comey learned of his firing while making a speech to FBI employees when the news of it flashed on a monitor behind him. Yep, the people he was speaking to got the news before he did.
The reality is that he's probably right when it comes to day-to-day work. Comey probably was good leader and probably did a good job when we the agency was dealing with rank-and-file bad guys. However, once he had to deal with a major political player with the power to ruin him, he didn't have the balls to stand up to her.
My position is that he should have done the right thing. However, he shouldn't have been in that position. The decision to prosecute somebody lies with the prosecutor, not his or her investigators or law enforcement officers. Loretta Lynch and her subordinates should have made the decision and taken the heat for it. Putting it on Comey was the height of "chicken shittiness." It was obvious to anybody with a brain that they were making their decisions based on their political agenda, which is why the case should have gone to a special prosecutor. Should have been a slam dunk, no-brainer decision.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Is it possible that Comey believed that HRC shouldn't be proecuted thus thought by making the decision himself he was keeping politics out of it? Imagine the furor if Loretta Lynch made the same decision/announcements that Comey did. She ws clearly more in the pocket of the Clintons.
Despite the rights attempts to ruin Comey, i think he was a man with integrity doing what he thought best for the country. Did he make missteps, sure but that doesn't detract from his integrity.
The conservative media attacks on Mueller and Comey, blatantly to protect Trump, are the saddest outcome of our partisan media coverage.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I'd say what's more sad is that we now know that it is not possible to bungle an investigation badly enough for it to ever acceptable to criticize or call for investigations into the FBI or DOJ - except when it involves issues of race, gender, or their ability to freely attack conservative groups or individuals.
Comey’s “missteps” do impugn his integrity. The saddest outcome of partisan media is partisan media.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
My take is that things were going as they were supposed to organizationally with Lynch and Comey until Bill Clinton made a public outreach to Lynch. Comey then felt that it was his duty to take the lead to keep things from appearing as if they were partisan.
If they were supporting HRC they had a poor way of showing it. The Comey letter and the subsequent "re-opening" of the investigation that turned up squat, swung the election. It made the Russian meddling, which only really had the hope to decay the faith in democratic societies ("It's RIGGED!!!") and foment dissent for the incoming President. It was like a fumble sack and the ball was bouncing around in the red zone.
The fact that Hillary walked free after the investigation shows that she was given preferential treatment. Anybody else would have been prosecuted.
How do you explain Bernie getting screwed by the DNC and the DNC getting questions in advance of the debates from libs in the media? Was that Russian meddling too, or was that the Dems undermining the faith in our democratic society?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Some investigations are warranted. I haven't heard a peep about the IG, for example. When you advocate an investigation with a desired political outcome you deserve to be called out. Nunes falls into this category.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
BS. Anyone in the lower levels of government, yes. People in leadership have rarely been prosecuted. Justice is unfair at times.
Not with that much evidence. As I said anybody else would be nailed but because of FBI corruption she walked.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That much evidence? Quote me the number of individual email that had classified markings and the level of classification. Break it down for each level of security clearance. Let's talk facts, not "she deleted 33k email so we'll assume it was top secret".
As a former 74C in the Army, I'm well versed in the rules for handling government documents. My job required a Top Secret clearance.
TBH, i fully expected HRC to be charged with a misdemeanor like Patraeus. What the FBI lacked was an intent to misuse classified information. They had Patraeus on tape telling his biographer he was giving her his classified notes and admitting he shouldn't. No smoking gun for HRC like that.
Last edited:
Do you believe the 33k emails were recipes and yoga? Looks like a cover up to me. She also never obtained permission to set up this server. Both of these alone would get any republican prosecuted.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
From this article a total of 110 classified emails. That's not a small amount. That's more than an "oops".
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
