Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 630 of 703

Thread: Fraud Upon the FISA Court Confirmed

  1. #601
    thank you for keeping us informed of what is going on with this topic. Sure as heck the mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about it.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #602
    A member of the Ukrainian parliament accused in his home country of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was identified in congressional testimony in October as a source for opposition research firm Fusion GPS.

    Nellie Ohr, a former contractor for the Washington, D.C.-based Fusion GPS, testified on Oct. 19 that Serhiy Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist turned Ukrainian lawmaker, was a source for Fusion GPS during the 2016 campaign.
    “I recall … they were mentioning someone named Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian,” Ohr said when asked who Fusion GPS’s sources were, according to portions of Ohr’s testimony confirmed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
    Ohr, whose husband is Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, testified that she was not aware of Leshchenko’s source information, but that she knew he was providing information to Fusion GPS, where she worked between late 2015 and the 2016 election.


    “His source information I am not aware of,” Nellie Ohr testified.
    “You were just aware that he was a source of –” one lawmaker began to ask.

    “Yes,” Nellie Ohr interjected.
    “ Glenn Simpson? Or was it a source of or both?” the lawmaker asked.
    “I’m not aware of a difference between them, just a source of Fusion GPS,” said Nellie Ohr, a Russia linguist who previously worked for the CIA’s open source research unit, Open Source Works.
    Nellie Ohr did not describe the Leshchenko-Fusion GPS source relationship in greater detail, so it is not clear whether the Ukrainian lawmaker was paid, how he transmitted information to Fusion or who at the firm he maintained contact with.
    Nellie Ohr did not testify whether she handled information from Leshchenko or if she provided it to her husband, who served as associate deputy attorney general and director of the Justice Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
    Fusion GPS did not reply to a list of detailed questions about Leshchenko. One of the firm’s co-founders, Tom Catan, replied “Strictly FYI” in an email, copying others at Fusion GPS. He did not answer follow-up questions.

    More at: https://truepundit.com/nellie-ohr-uk...on-gps-source/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #603
    Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel for the FBI and head of the bureau’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch, signed off on an application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—before the application went to FBI Director James Comey—despite not having read it, she said.
    Anderson, whose division was also assigned the Mid-Year Exam—the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server—was responsible for legal oversight of the FBI’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications process, and provided a final sign-off before FISA applications were sent to the FBI director level. Anderson, who supervised the FBI attorneys involved in FISA applications, characterized her role as being “involved at a supervisory level within the legal chain of command.”
    Although she did not voluntarily reveal the information, she admitted during questioning that she was the individual responsible at the senior executive service (SES) level for signing off on the original Carter Page FISA application:
    Mr. Breitenbach: “You had mentioned earlier that all FISAs have to be signed off, have an approver at an SES level. In OGC? Or is that anywhere inside the FBI?”
    Ms. Anderson: “In NSLB, in my particular branch.”
    Mr. Breitenbach: “In NSLB?”
    Ms. Anderson: “Yeah. Uh-huh.”
    Mr. Breitenbach: “Okay. Who was that SES approver for the Carter Page FISA?”
    Ms. Anderson: “My best recollection is that I was for the initiation.”
    In her Aug. 31, 2018, testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed for this article, Anderson described her role in the FISA process as “a backstop” whereby she would serve as “a last check in the process to ensure that all necessary elements of the FISA package were present and that it met the basic requirements of probable cause.”
    However, there appears to be significant latitude in the “backstop” review process. According to Anderson, the Department of Justice (DOJ) attached a “cover note” that identified potential issues, if any, for her to review with every FISA application. If no issues were identified by the DOJ, then according to Anderson, there would be no need for her to read the FISA application:
    Ms. Anderson: “[So] there typically would be a cover note that would summarize the FISA. That cover note is generated by DOJ. And because of the time pressures involved and the sort of very-last-stop-in-the-process nature of the review, the SES review, that’s done, I wouldn’t read a FISA unless there were some sort of issue that was identified based on the cover note.”
    Mr. Breitenbach: “You are, though, reviewing for the sufficiency of probable cause –”
    Ms. Anderson: “After many people have reviewed that assessment. And so, as I mentioned, this was essentially a backstop to all of the other processes and the rigor that had been applied by DOJ attorneys and by FBI investigative and legal personnel.”
    Despite the FISA application’s politicized nature and obvious sensitivity, it appears that no issues were identified in relation to it, as Anderson testified that she had not read the application, only the DOJ cover note:
    Mr. Breitenbach: “Does that mean you read the FISA –”
    Ms. Anderson: “No.”

    Mr. Breitenbach: “Okay. So you did not read the FISA, but you would’ve been familiar then with at least part of the FISA with regard to the legal predication for probable cause in the FISA in order to be able to sign it?”
    Ms. Anderson: “I would be familiar based on the cover note, yes.”
    Mr. Breitenbach: “On the cover note. Okay. So –”
    Ms. Anderson: “In the case of the Carter Page FISA, I was generally familiar with the facts of the application –”
    Mr. Breitenbach: “Okay.”
    Ms. Anderson: “– before I signed that cover note.”
    Anderson claimed that in the case of the Page FISA, her approval was “more administrative in nature” because “all necessary approvals, including up through and including the leadership of the FBI and the leadership of the Department” had been obtained by the time the Page FISA came to her desk for sign-off.


    Anderson admitted that the Page FISA process was handled outside of normal procedures, receiving early approvals from leadership officials at both the FBI and DOJ—including Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates—prior to the document reaching her desk:
    Ms. Anderson: “In this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application. And, in fact, the Deputy Attorney General, who had the authority to sign the application, to be the substantive approver on the FISA application itself, had approved the application. And that typically would not have been the case before I did that. Before, I would usually sign the cover note on the FISA application.
    “So this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature. And so, in this particular case, I wouldn’t view it as my role to second-guess that substantive approval that had already been given by the Deputy Director and by the Deputy Attorney General in this particular instance.”
    Normally, the applications would be presented to Anderson for sign-off and then sent to the FBI director, before being sent to the DOJ for final approval by either the attorney general, deputy attorney general, or assistant attorney general for the National Security Division.
    When asked to describe the attention the FISA application received from FBI and DOJ leadership, Anderson testified that the “Deputy Director was involved in reviewing the FISA line by line. The Deputy Attorney General over on the DOJ side of the street was similarly involved, as I understood, reviewing the FISA application line by line.”
    Anderson later appeared to soften her characterization of McCabe’s level of review, noting that “[t]he Deputy Director read it, as I understood.”
    Notably, during McCabe’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, with Anderson acting as his FBI attorney, McCabe’s review of the Page FISA was not addressed at any time.
    In particular, Anderson singled out the involvement of her former boss, FBI General Counsel James Baker, in the Page FISA review process. Anderson described Baker as “one of the Nation’s leading experts on FISA…one of the best people you could possibly consult about what was contained within the FISA application.”
    Anderson, while defending her handling of the Page FISA signing, claimed that Baker had “personally reviewed and made edits to the FISA.”
    However, according to Baker’s Oct. 3, 2018, testimony, he had only read a small portion of the Page FISA and specifically did not review the underlying Woods Procedure file, which provided documentation for the accuracy of facts represented in the FISA application:
    Rep. Meadows: “And did you read the whole Carter Page FISA application?”
    James Baker: “I — my recollection is that I read the factual part of the initiation of the Carter Page FISA. I am not going to say I read –“
    Baker clarified that by “factual part” he meant that he had only read the probable cause section of the Page FISA. He also testified that he had asked Anderson to personally notify him when the Page FISA began “moving through the system.” Baker noted that he did not believe he reviewed the final document, stating “the final would not necessarily have to come to me for approval.”
    Contrary to Anderson’s claim, Baker said that he was primarily relying on briefings from his staff, which presumably would have included Anderson in her role as head of the National Security and Cyberlaw Branch—the specific legal division within the FBI that was responsible for the Page FISA:
    “[W]hatever briefing I received from my folks about what was in the application, my assessment was that the information that we were providing was adequate and consistent, it was adequate to put the FISA court on notice of the important information that it needed to know, and we were doing so in way that was consistent with our practice with the FISA court that I have been involved with for 20 years.”
    During his testimony, Baker admitted that disclosures regarding the role of DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife, Nellie, had been unknown to him at the time of the Page FISA application. Ohr was passing on information from Steele, and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, to the FBI.
    Baker also testified that this information, had he known of it at the time, would have been subject to further consideration for inclusion in the FISA application:
    Rep. Ratcliffe: “But you agree with me, generally speaking, that if the number four person at the Department of Justice and his wife both play roles with respect to the creation of a piece of evidence, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should have been apprised of that fact.”
    James Baker: “If they played a role in the creation of it, and that’s how it came to the Bureau, then that seems like something that at least — again, I would like to know more details about it, but it seems like something that should have been evaluated about whether it should go into the FISA application or not. I would have — what you say concerns me and I would like to know more about it.”


    More at: https://www.theepochtimes.com/senior...t_2793879.html
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #604
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...67361713704960

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #605
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  7. #606
    https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/statu...68849120251907

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #607
    https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch/st...47709287411714

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #608
    Judicial Watch announced today it received 215 pages of records from the U.S. Department of Justice revealing former FBI General Counsel James Baker discussed the investigation of Clinton-related emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop with Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. Baker then forwarded the conversation to his FBI colleagues. The documents also further describe a previously reported quid pro quo from the Obama State Department offering the FBI more legal attaché positions if it would downgrade a redaction in an email found during the Hillary Clinton email investigation “from classified to something else.”
    The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 4, 2017 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). Judicial Watch seeks:

    • All records of communications, including but not limited to, emails, text messages and instant chats, between FBI official Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page;
    • All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Peter Strzok.
    • All travel requests, travel authorizations, travel vouchers and expense reports of Lisa Page.

    On October 28, 2016, the day that Comey sent a letter to Congress regarding the FBI’s discovery that the Weiner laptop contained Clinton’s emails. Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer David Kendall, within hours, emails Baker requesting a call “ASAP” about the Comey letter. Baker describes his follow-up call to senior FBI officials:
    I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back. Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that.
    [Redacted paragraph]
    He said that our letter was “tantalizingly ambiguous” and made statements that were “inchoate and highly ominous” such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out to make out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton.
    I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him.
    I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours. Sound reasonable?
    Baker’s heads up on the Kendall call was sent to:


    The emails show that a conference call for the above senior officials was set up for the next day by Peter Strzok. (Two days before the election, on November 6, Comey sent a second letter reporting that the FBI’s review of the Weiner laptop material would not change his “conclusion” that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted.)
    On October 13, 2016, former FBI attorney Lisa Page sent an email, which apparently references a related Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit and further discusses a previously reported quid pro quo offer from the State Department:
    Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation. These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week. As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else. [Emphasis added]
    The lawsuit also forced the release of a November 6, 2016, email by then-FBI official Peter Strzok telling Bowdich, Priestap, Rybicki, Page, former FBI General Counsel James Baker and others: “[Redacted], Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [Anthony Weiner] laptop. We found no previously unknown, potentially classified emails on the media.”
    As Judicial Watch previously reported, there were at least 18 classified emails found on the Weiner laptop by the FBI. Paul Sperry’s RealClear Investigations report revealed that only 3,077 of the 340,000 emails “were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.”
    The new records also include a September 2, 2016, email that Comey forwards containing a press release issued that day by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), in which Grassley criticized the FBI for not publicly releasing many unclassified records related to the Clinton email-server investigation, as demanded by Congress. In his cover note responding to Grassley’s charge, Comey tells his top aides, “To be great is to be misunderstood.” Page then responds with, “Outstanding.”
    On October 23, 2016, Strzok forwarded to Page and others the Wall Street Journal article revealing that Andrew McCabe’s wife had received a half million dollars for her Democratic state senate campaign. Page responded that the article, “shaded or omitted or mischaracterized” facts “in order to get out the story [the reporter] wanted to tell.” She claimed the WSJ story was just “another depressing chapter in this whole post-investigation saga.”
    “It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal?”

    More at: https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...linton-emails/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #609
    https://twitter.com/FuctupMike/statu...70275132493824

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #610

    Nunes reveals criminal referral plans once Barr is AG


  13. #611
    https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/sta...78468969058304

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #612
    John Dowd, the former lead attorney representing President Donald Trump in dealing with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in an ABC News podcast released Tuesday for his handling of the investigation.

    Dowd’s resignation last March was interpreted as a blow to the president’s legal defense, and perhaps as a sign that the White House was losing confidence in its case. But Dowd said then, and told ABC News again Tuesday, that Mueller would find nothing on Trump — and said the Special Counsel should simply “‘knock it off and get it done.”
    In addition, he said that Rosenstein had failed to manage Mueller’s investigation properly, and had declined to investigate former FBI director James Comey for misleading Congress when presented with the evidence:


    Dowd suggested during the interview that he channeled the frustration the president has displayed for months about the probe, and those running it. He believes it should have ended last year, and he was surprised that Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosensteininstead allowed it to mushroom.

    Dowd said that at one point after Comey appeared before Congress, he wrote to Rosenstein to ask for the Justice Department to investigate whether the former FBI director lied in his testimony.
    (MORE: Mueller told Trump’s lawyers he could ‘compel’ president to testify via subpoena)
    “He blew me off,” Dowd said. “That’s not leadership. That’s not accountability. … We did it in writing. We did it politely. We did it confidentially. And he just blew us off. So, I lost all respect for Rod Rosenstein.”
    Read and listen to the full interview here.


    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...e-james-comey/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #613
    Judge voids Paul Manafort plea deal, says he 'intentionally' lied to the FBI, special counsel and grand jury
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/13/polit...ler/index.html

  16. #614
    As one might expect, President Trump has chimed in on twitter, where he slammed McCabe for giving Hillary Clinton a pass and accused the former deputy director, who admitted to lying to the DOJ's inspector general, of giving "Hillary a pass."
    Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax - a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won....
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019
    ....Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave, or left. McCabe’s wife received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign - he gave Hillary a pass. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019
    And as the Federalist's Sean Davis reminds us, Trump's criticisms are very much justified.
    McCabe, whose wife took a truckload of campaign cash from a top Clinton donor and confidant, colluded with Clinton campaign contractors and the foreign bagman of a sanctioned Russian oligarch to try and take down a duly elected U.S. president. https://t.co/J24idg4Sxs
    — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 14, 2019
    Trump Jr. took the attack one step further, accusing McCabe of trying to orchestrate a "deep state coup" against his father, before declaring that it's time that somebody should "investigate the investigators."
    Wait, so is McCabe admitting that he attempted to lead a deep state coup against the President? #WitchHunt https://t.co/1kcBLFd8CU
    — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 14, 2019
    When is someone going to finally investigate the investators? If this isn’t and attempted coup I don’t know what is. Regardless of party if you’re not troubled by this, you’re part of the problem. https://t.co/a1d6QKUUAs
    — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 14, 2019
    And though Rosenstein has already announced his plans to resign from the DOJ after William Barr has been confirmed, Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows is renewing the call for him to resign immediately following McCabe's revelations.
    Rod Rosenstein has no business working at the Department of Justice, and if these latest reports are true, he should not only resign immediately but come before Congress and answer questions
    — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) February 14, 2019
    * * *
    In his first interview about the Russia probe since he was summarily fired by President Trump just 26 hours before he was set to retire and collect his pension, and while the possibility of criminal charges over his attempts to cover up his leaks to the press, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe sat for an interview with CBS about the early days of the Russia probe.

    In an excerpt of the full interview, which is set to air on Sunday, McCabe described how he quickly moved to start the Russia probe a day after meeting with Trump in May 2017 in the days after James Comey's firing, over fears that he would soon be fired. After authorizing the investigation into Trump's Russia ties, McCabe sought to ensure that the investigation - which was eventually rolled into the probe eventually taken over by Special Counsel Robert Mueller - would be on "solid ground" even if he was booted from the FBI.
    "I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that were I removed quickly or reassigned or fired that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace," McCabe told CBS.
    The interview marked the first time McCabe has ever opened up about his thought process when he launched the probe. In his recounting of his conversation with President Trump, McCabe said he felt intimidated by the president.
    "I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage," McCabe said in an excerpt aired on CBS on Thursday. "And that was something that troubled me greatly."
    He compared Trump's request that McCabe allow him to visit the FBI - a visit that McCabe suggest would have been well outside the bounds of decorum - to tactics used by Russian mobsters that McCabe had once prosecuted.
    "In this moment, I felt the way I’d felt in 1998, in a case involving the Russian Mafia, when I sent a man I’ll call Big Felix in to meet with a Mafia boss named Dimitri Gufield," McCabe wrote. "The same kind of thing was happening here, in the Oval Office. Dimitri had wanted Felix to endorse his protection scheme. This is a dangerous business, and it’s a bad neighborhood, and you know, if you want, I can protect you from that. If you want my protection. I can protect you. Do you want my protection? The president and his men were trying to work me the way a criminal brigade would operate."
    Of course, nobody in the mainstream press has pointed out that the timing of McCabe's decision to launch the probe would suggest that he was looking for leverage to stop him from being fired along with Comey...though, thanks to his decision to lie to the DOJ's inspector general, that problem swiftly took care of itself.
    He also admitted that he launched the investigation without any actual evidence...just partisan hackery.
    so in other words the head of the @FBI is confessing publicly he assumed Trump was guilty without any evidence and started an investigation for no reason but partisan hackery ...... and saw nothing Hillary did as suspicious
    — Dividend Master (@DividendMaster) February 14, 2019
    In a discussion about the interview, McCabe's interviewer Scott Pelley said McCabe affirmed that there had been discussions about invoking the 25th amendment to remove Trump - something that was the subject of a series of leaks last year...
    .@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment." pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF
    — Norah O'Donnell���� (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019
    ...about a plot allegedly concocted by Rod Rosenstein (Rosenstein, for what its worth, has issued a statement denying McCabe's assertion that the Deputy Attorney General raised the issue of Trump Administration officials wearing a wire during their talks with the president).


    More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...ar-being-fired
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #615
    The top brass of the Obama FBI went to great lengths to justify their decision not to recommend charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, according to Judicial Watch, which obtained evidence that the agency created a 'chart' of Clinton's offenses.

    The newly obtained emails came in response to a court ordered Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the DOJ had previously ignored.
    Via Judicial Watch (emphasis ours):

    • Three days after then-FBI Director James Comey’s press conference announcing that he would not recommend a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, a July 8, 2016 email chain shows that, the Special Counsel to the FBI’s executive assistant director in charge of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Strzok and others that he was producing a “chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation [of Clinton’s server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute…”

    [Redacted] writes: I am still working on an additional page for these TPs that consist of a chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation, and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute, hopefully in non-lawyer friendly terms …
    Strzok forwards to Page, Jonathan Moffa and others: I have redlined some points. Broadly, I have some concerns about asking some our [sic] senior field folks to get into the business of briefing this case, particularly when we have the D’s [Comey’s] statement as a kind of stand alone document. In my opinion, there’s too much nuance, detail, and potential for missteps. But I get they may likely be asked for comment.
    [Redacted] writes to Strzok, Page and others: The DD [Andrew McCabe] will need to approve these before they are pushed out to anyone. At the end of last week, he wasn’t inclined to send them to anyone. But, it’s great to have them on the shelf in case they’re needed.
    [Redacted] writes to Strzok and Page: I’m really not sure why they continued working on these [talking points]. In the morning, I’ll make sure Andy [McCabe] tells Mike [Kortan] to keep these in his pocket. I guess Andy just didn’t ever have a moment to turn these off with Mike like he said he would.
    Page replies: Yes, agree that this is not a good idea.
    Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and her associates have been released.

    • On May 15, 2016, James Rybicki, former chief of staff to Comey, sends FBI General Counsel James Baker; Bill Priestap, former assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; McCabe; Page; and others an email with the subject line “Request from the Director.”

    Rybicki writes: By NLT [no later than] next Monday, the Director would like to see a list of all cases charged in the last 20 years where the gravamen of the charge was mishandling classified information.
    It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges brought, and (4) charge of conviction.
    If need be, we can get it from NSD [National Security Division] and let them know that the Director asked for this personally.
    Please let me know who can take the lead on this.
    Thanks!
    Jim
    Page forwards to Strzok: FYSA [For your situational awareness]
    Strzok replies to Page: I’ll take the lead, of course – sounds like an espionage section question… Or do you think OGC [Office of the General Counsel] should?
    And the more reason for us to get feedback to Rybicki, as we all identified this as an issue/question over a week ago.
    Page replies: I was going to reply to Jim [Rybicki] and tell him I can talked [sic] to you about this already. Do you want me to?
    ***
    Recall that the FBI agents involved made extensive edits to former FBI Diretor James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary Clinton - changing the language to effectively downgrade the crime of mishandling classified information so that they could recommend no charges.
    According to a December, 2017 letter from Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok changed the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
    "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, gross negligence is “A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard," and "Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights.” "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
    According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
    18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law.
    And now, thanks to the Judicial Watch FOIA, we know that the FBI also went to great lengths to justify letting Clinton off the hook with a "chart" of her offenses.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...clinton-crimes
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #616

    Do You Believe in the Deep State Now?

    https://www.theamericanconservative....eep-state-now/

    The revelation that top Justice officials considered deposing Trump should answer that question for good.


    Then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe with justice department officials in 2017. (Photo by Eli Alford, DOJ/EOUSA)

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    That’s a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump’s firing of former Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly elected president out of office.

    According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in behalf of Russia.

    The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May 16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate’s president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.

    But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it would set, it’s necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration within those four days that the guy can’t govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue. It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the vice president would govern. If Congress can’t muster the two-thirds majority within the prescribed time period, the president “shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”

    It’s almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental “incapacitation,” as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the impeachment language of the Constitution.

    For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.

    One narrative—let’s call it Narrative A—has it that honorable and dedicated federal law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite understandably, that Trump had “colluded” with Russian officials to cadge a victory that otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the “Russia as Threat” preoccupation, and by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

    The other view—Narrative B—posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart Trump’s candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters, conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably columnist Kimberley Strassel.

    The McCabe revelation won’t affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and outrageous as this “deep state” behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.

    And those Narrative A folks won’t have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators on four occasions, including three times while under oath.

    Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn’t matter. Peter Strzok, head of the FBI’s counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele’s dossier of dirt on Trump, including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and…passionate about him not being president”? Not important. The dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial. Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?

    Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the country’s premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn’t like. The Times even says that McCabe “confirmed” an earlier report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.

    There is no suggestion in McCabe’s interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley, who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. “They…were speculating, ‘This person would be with us, this person would not be,’ and they were counting noses in that effort,” said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein’s insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, “This was not perceived to be a joke.”

    What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were revealed by The New York Times and CNN in January, based on closed-door congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don’t have to read very carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility. The Times headline: “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” CNN’s: “Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was ‘following directions’ of Russia.” And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.

    The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were clearly self-interested leaks.

    Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever since, particularly in the Times. Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was “colluding with Moscow,” Brennan dodged the question. He said his experience had taught him that “the Russians try to suborn individuals, and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly.”

    Of course you can’t collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan’s fancy expression has the effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, “The real purpose…is to confer on national security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration with the Russian government.”

    That seems to be what’s going on here. There’s no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations with Russia. They viewed him as a president “who needed to be reined in,” as a CNN report described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.

    So they expanded the definition of collusion to include “unwitting” collaboration in order to justify their machinations. It’s difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic.

    Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It’s getting more and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #617
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #618
    OMG what a bunch of crooks, but I guess Hillary says it best , cause we know that we will never see justice anyway;
    ''What does it really matter at this point....''

  22. #619
    This thread is so important and so damning, that the shills rarely post in it.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  23. #620
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    This thread is so important and so damning, that the shills rarely post in it.
    None of the TDS victims do, they don't want it bumped.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #621
    Former top FBI lawyer James Baker, in closed-door testimony to Congress, detailed alleged discussions among senior officials at the Justice Department about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office, claiming he was told Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said two Trump Cabinet officials were “ready to support” such an effort.
    The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book.


    Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials. But in his testimony, the lawyer said McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to him to relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including discussions of the 25th Amendment.
    “I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he -- this was what was related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment,” Baker told the committees.
    The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for removing a sitting president from office. One way that could happen is if a majority of the president’s Cabinet says the president is incapable of discharging his duties.

    More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/for...endment-effort
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #622
    Comey went Hoover on Trump in their first meeting with an explicit blackmail attempt using the dossier and other fake items (which Comey testified he knew they were all fake!).

    Instead of submitting to the deep state agenda, Trump simply said "You're fired."

    Then the deep state immediately launched an internal Russia investigation while simultaneously opening 25A talks. They had NOTHING on Russia and the 25Aers did not have enough support. So to save their asses, they announce the special counsel.

    Trump took these guys head on and won. Maybe not won, but definitely exposed the FBI for what they are. His biggest expositions were the media and deep state. 2016 changed America forever.

    My question is, why did McCabe admit/talk about 25A on 60 minutes? Why would you ever admit to something like that, and think it was a good thing (let alone legal)? And what does 25A have to do with McCabe anyway? He is not a cabinet member. Do non-cabinet members run 25A protocol now?

  26. #623
    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    Comey went Hoover on Trump in their first meeting with an explicit blackmail attempt using the dossier and other fake items (which Comey testified he knew they were all fake!).

    Instead of submitting to the deep state agenda, Trump simply said "You're fired."

    Then the deep state immediately launched an internal Russia investigation while simultaneously opening 25A talks. They had NOTHING on Russia and the 25Aers did not have enough support. So to save their asses, they announce the special counsel.

    Trump took these guys head on and won. Maybe not won, but definitely exposed the FBI for what they are. His biggest expositions were the media and deep state. 2016 changed America forever.

    My question is, why did McCabe admit/talk about 25A on 60 minutes? Why would you ever admit to something like that, and think it was a good thing (let alone legal)? And what does 25A have to do with McCabe anyway? He is not a cabinet member. Do non-cabinet members run 25A protocol now?
    McCabe has likely flipped. Saving his own hide from the storm that is forming.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  27. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    McCabe has likely flipped. Saving his own hide from the storm that is forming.
    Flipped how? Before he went down, he was pro-deep state and anti-democratically elected president.

    Now he is anti-deep state and supports the president?

    Who is he flipping on?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #625
    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    Flipped how? Before he went down, he was pro-deep state and anti-democratically elected president.

    Now he is anti-deep state and supports the president?

    Who is he flipping on?
    The theory would be that he has cut a deal with Trump/Q and is turning state's evidence.

    I have no idea whether to believe that yet at this point.

    It is also possible that he is testing the waters and signalling a willingness to cut a deal that hasn't been cut yet.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #626
    This full 60 minutes interview is going to be the best thing ever...

  31. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The theory would be that he has cut a deal with Trump/Q and is turning state's evidence.

    I have no idea whether to believe that yet at this point.

    It is also possible that he is testing the waters and signalling a willingness to cut a deal that hasn't been cut yet.
    I need to save my own bacon. $#@! everybody.

  32. #628
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    I need to save my own bacon. $#@! everybody.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #629
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The theory would be that he has cut a deal with Trump/Q and is turning state's evidence.

    I have no idea whether to believe that yet at this point.

    It is also possible that he is testing the waters and signalling a willingness to cut a deal that hasn't been cut yet.
    +1
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  34. #630
    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to investigate alleged discussions at the Department of Justice about invoking the 25th Amendment as a way to oust President Trump from office and threatened to subpoena former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe if he refused to testify on the matter before the Senate.
    "We're going to find out what happened here and the only way I know to find out is to call the people in under oath and find out, through questioning, who's telling the truth because the underlying accusation is beyond stunning," Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CBS News’ "Face the Nation."
    Graham added that he also plans to subpoena both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if they won’t voluntarily agree to testify before the committee.
    "There is no organization beyond scrutiny," Graham said. "There is no organization that can't withstand scrutiny. And the FBI will come out stronger."

    He said: "But we've got to get to the bottom of it. What are people to think after they watch "60 Minutes" when they hear this accusation by the acting deputy — acting FBI director that the deputy attorney general encouraged him to try to find ways to count votes to replace the president? That can't go unaddressed."

    More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gra...rmer-fbi-chief
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-10-2015, 06:23 AM
  2. US Supreme Court: FISA surveillance stays secret
    By Suzanimal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2015, 03:26 PM
  3. Is the FISA Court constitutional?
    By LibertyEagle in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2013, 10:13 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2013, 07:22 PM
  5. Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against FISA
    By Constitutional Paulicy in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 03:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •