Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (71193)

5/11/2018 6:01:48 PM

From: FJB

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
i-node
James Seagrove

Respond to of 365063

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHY THEY TURNED STORMY SCAM UP TO 11. THE CORRUPTION AT THE FBI IS BEYOND ANYONE'S IMAGINATION.

What's behind FBI-DOJ stonewall on probable FBI spy in Trump campaign?

By Thomas Lifson
May 11, 2018
americanthinker.com

We may be on the verge of uncovering a shocking abuse of its powers by the FBI that it and the Department of Justice frantically have been concealing from Congress and the American people. Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has been doing superb detective work, and has uncovered strong hints of an FBI spy planted in the Trump presidential campaign. Her latest article, published last night, can be found here outside the WSJ paywall.

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source's name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes's request for details on this secret source was "wholly appropriate," "completely within the scope" of the committee's long-running FBI investigation, and "something that probably should have been answered a while ago." Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it. ...

Thanks to the Washington Post's unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes's request deals with a "top secret intelligence source" of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly "unmasked" Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Strassel rightly points out that timing is of the essence:

[W]hen precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn't being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide's loose lips.

For the moment, the stone wall is standing, but probably not for long.

Here is the May 3 letter from Assistant A.G. Stephen Boyd responding to a subpoena from House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes, claiming that "disclosure of responsive information to such requests can risk severe consequences, including the potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities."

Sara Carter points out that it took a threat to hold A.G. Sessions in contempt to get a closed-door meeting at the DOJ to discuss the classified information being withheld:

Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions has bought himself time from a threat of contempt of Congress for failing to produce classified information lawmakers requested after the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a colleague attended a closed-door meeting Thursday afternoon with members of the DOJ and intelligence community.

Chairman Devin Nunes, R-CA, and House Intelligence Committee member Congressman Trey Gowdy, R-SC, met with representatives from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, FBI and DOJ in an effort to obtain or view the classified information requested several weeks ago on a particular individual related to the Special Counsel's probe on alleged collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russia.

Following the meeting, the two chairs issued a statement that expresses surprising patience, indicating to me that something big is on the way:

"We had a productive discussion today with officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Department of Justice, and FBI in which we raised questions related to information requested from the Intelligence Community," according to a joint statement released by Nunes and Gowdy. "The officials committed to holding further discussions of these matters, and we look forward to continuing our dialogue next week to satisfy the Committee's request."

What could cause the two congressmen to be so patient? My guess is that they learned that a criminal investigation is underway. In other words, the people who authorized the placing of a spy in the Trump campaign and other abuses will be indicted, and premature disclosure of this information could imperil the prosecution.

Consider the already delayed DOJ inspector general's report. I.G. Horowitz was expected to testify May 8, but that has been delayed until possibly June. There is reason to believe that criminal referrals will be part of that report and that indictments may be forthcoming following its completion.

I am as impatient as anyone to learn more about this scandal. But I also want to see the ultimate prosecutions be successful. I have long defended A.G. Sessions in the belief that as a former prosecutor, he is a stickler about dotting the is and crossing the ts so that solid cases don't get thrown out of court on procedural errors.

My patience timeline shamelessly includes November 8, 2018 as the most important deadline

To: i-node who wrote (71193)	5/11/2018 6:12:14 PM
From: FJB	3 Recommendations Recommended By i-node James Seagrove Thomas M. Respond to of 365063

The FBI’s Shocking Disrespect for Congress When I was at the bureau, lawmakers’ requests for information got prompt responses. By Thomas J. Baker May 10, 2018 6:53 p.m. ET wsj.com Last week we learned that some Republican members of Congress are considering articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he doesn’t hand over certain Federal Bureau of Investigation documents. In January, House Speaker Paul Ryan had to threaten the deputy attorney general and FBI Director Christopher Wray with contempt to get them to comply with a House subpoena for documents about the Steele dossier. I spent 33 years in the FBI, including several working in the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. The recent deterioration in the bureau’s relationship with Congress is shocking. It truly is a change in culture. Former Directors William Webster (1978-87) and Louis Freeh (1993-2001) insisted that the FBI respond promptly to any congressional request. In those days a congressional committee didn’t need a subpoena to get information from the FBI. Yes, we were particularly responsive to the appropriations committees, which are key to the bureau’s funding. But my colleagues and I shared a general sense that responding to congressional requests was the right thing to do. The bureau’s leaders often reminded us of Congress’s legitimate oversight role. This was particularly true of the so-called Gang of Eight, which was created by statute to ensure the existence of a secure vehicle through which congressional leaders could be briefed on the most sensitive counterintelligence or terrorism investigations. On Aug. 27, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes asked the FBI to deliver certain documents immediately. The bulk of the documents weren’t actually delivered until Jan. 11. I can’t imagine Mr. Webster or Mr. Freeh tolerating such a delay. One of the documents Mr. Nunes requested is the electronic communication believed to have initiated the counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump in July 2016. The FBI had previously provided a redacted text of that communication, but the Intelligence Committee wanted to see more. On March 23 the bureau essentially told the committee it wouldn’t lift the redactions. There are legitimate reasons why the FBI would want certain portions of a sensitive document redacted, such as when information comes from a foreign partner. But there are ways around such difficulties. Select members of Congress have in the past been allowed to read highly sensitive documents under specific restrictions. Former FBI Director James Comey didn’t even inform the Gang of Eight that the bureau had opened a counterintelligence investigation into the campaign of a major-party candidate for president. He testified on March 20, 2017, that he had kept Congress in the dark about the Trump investigation because he’d been advised to do so by his assistant director of counterintelligence—due to “the sensitivity of the matter.” The Gang of Eight exists for precisely this purpose. Not using it is inexplicable. This isn’t the way a law-enforcement agency should behave under our system of separation of powers. Attorney General Jeff Sessions must push Mr. Wray to get the FBI’s relationship with Congress back on track. It won’t be easy, but the American people deserve it and the Constitution demands it. Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attaché.

To: i-node who wrote (71193)	5/11/2018 10:13:10 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 365063

OH MY. THEY MAY BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN CORRUPT MUELLER NOW THAT THEY FOUND THE FBI MOLE. SO SAD, NOT! HUGE! Federal Records reveal that Obama, Clapper and Brennan Paid Stefan Halper $282,295 to SPY ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN! pic.twitter.com/GoCeIMYCOW — Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) May 11, 2018

To: i-node who wrote (71193)	5/12/2018 8:14:47 AM
From: Lane3	3 Recommendations Recommended By abuelita John Koligman Mannie Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 365063

But having watched him work as president, and for years before that, I believe there is a reasonable chance of doing better. You believe because you believe. Well, that does satisfy a lot of people. It has comforted a lot of people throughout time. Sometimes it worked out OK. I recognized early on that Trump did not have the most rudimentary qualifications to be President. As I have written, he could not even act like an adult. I would not hire into the simplest of jobs someone who could not act like an adult. Now, a knowledge worker and manager at any level further needs the ability and inclination to use reason, to analyze alternatives and plan a plausible, explainable course of action. Yet this country, here in the 21st century, three centuries after the Age of Enlightenment, hired as nothing short of President someone too primitive to practice reasoned choice, someone who operates out of his gut or limbic brain or nether part. And you think that's not only OK but spectacular. Because you believe. Well, good for you. I need evidence of a reasoned approach to respect a decision. I’d be interesting in knowing what you think a nuclear Iran means to the res od the world Implied false dichotomy, bigly.