SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mrjns who wrote (82151)7/6/2018 11:46:10 AM
From: FJB1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 456198
 
Memos detail FBI’s ‘Hurry the F up pressure’ to probe Trump campaign

By John Solomon
Opinion Contributor

Multiple reviews of whether FBI agents’ political bias affected the Russia-Trump collusion case remain in their infancy, but investigators already have unearthed troubling internal communications long withheld from public view.

We already know from FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s now-infamous text messages with his fellow agent and reported lover, Lisa Page, that Strzok — the man driving that Russia collusion investigation — disdained Donald Trump and expressed willingness to use his law enforcement powers to “stop” the Republican from becoming president.

The question that lingers, unanswered: Did those sentiments affect official actions?

Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.


They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.

One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election.

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigatingCarter Page’s travel to Moscow.

The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

Within weeks, that “pretext” — often a synonym for an excuse — had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.

To date, the former Trump adviser has been accused of no wrongdoing despite being subjected to nearly a year of surveillance.

Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.

In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election.

“At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.

Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”

“Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.

“Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”

Until all the interviews are completed by Congress and DOJ’s inspector general later this year, we won’t know why counterintelligence agents who normally take a methodical approach to investigation felt so much pressure days before the election on this case.

Were they concerned about losing a chance to gather evidence at a critical moment? Or maybe, as some Republicans long have suspected, they wanted to impact the election?

The agents got the Carter Page warrant in October and, within two weeks, Democrats in Congress such as then-Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and some media members were raising questions about the FBI withholding word of a probe that could hurt Trump. FBI agents monitored those reports, too.

The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

“Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.


It’s an extraordinary exchange, if for no other reason than this: The very day after Trump wins the presidency, some top FBI officials are involved in the sort of gum-shoeing normally reserved for field agents, and their goal is to find derogatory information about someone who had worked for the president-elect.

As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.

On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.

These and other documents are still being disseminated to various oversight bodies in Congress, and more revelations are certain to occur.

Yet, now, irrefutable proof exists that agents sought to create pressure to get “derogatory” information and a “pretext” to interview people close to a future president they didn’t like.

Clear evidence also exists that an investigation into still-unproven collusion between a foreign power and a U.S. presidential candidate was driven less by secret information from Moscow and more by politically tainted media leaks.

And that means the dots between expressions of political bias and official actions just got a little more connected.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.



To: Mrjns who wrote (82151)7/6/2018 11:53:34 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Drygulch Dan
Honey_Bee
Mrjns

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 456198
 
ABOUT THE PRECINCT OCASIO-CORTEZ WON.

'From the Gotham Gazette : With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday, the State Board of Elections shows 27,826 registered Democrats cast votes in Tuesday’s primary in New York’s 14th District. With 235,745 registered Democrats as of April, according to the BOE, this comes out to a turnout of around 11.8 percent.

Marxists aren't actually inspiring the masses to come to the polls.'



To: Mrjns who wrote (82151)7/6/2018 2:01:35 PM
From: FJB6 Recommendations

Recommended By
AJ Muckenfus
Honey_Bee
locogringo
Mrjns
pogbull

and 1 more member

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 456198
 
GOPe trying to throw the mid-terms or something. DISGUSTING.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Trump GOP Establishment Seeks $1 Tril National Gas Tax

PETER J. FERRARA
7/05/2018
investors.com

Just when the Democrat Party has gone socialist, the old line, anti-Trump, GOP Establishment is flipping out too. Two former GOP Secretaries of State, James Baker and George Shultz, have teamed up to support what they are calling a national carbon tax, which would basically be a trillion dollar national gas tax, and a new tax on electricity and all other forms of traditional energy.

That would amount to a death grip on the American economy.


They have formed a front to advance this mayhem called the Alliance for Market Solutions.
They call this new trillion-dollar tax on working people and the middle class "pro-growth," as they explain in a book, "Carbon Tax Policy: A Conservative Dialogue on Pro-Growth Opportunities". But there is nothing pro-growth or conservative about this burdensome, intrusive, Big Government, anti-growth tax.

Before you can have a market solution, you must have a problem to solve. "Carbon pollution" is not a problem, because there is no such thing as carbon pollution. That term refers to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which come from burning the fossil fuels — oil, natural gas, and coal — that powered the Industrial Revolution. That economic revolution produced the sustained, long term, economic growth that created the modern world.

CO2 is a natural substance found in the environment, essential actually to the survival of all life on the planet. CO2 enables plants to grow, feeding animals, which feed other animals, including humans. Without CO2, plants would die, and so would all other life on the planet, scientifically labelled "carbon-based life forms".

This is why CO2 can never be referred to as "pollution." As CO2 emissions have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the planet has flowered with greenery that can be observed from satellites orbiting the planet. This is why very high concentrations of CO2 are pumped into actual greenhouses, to promote rapid growth of plant life.

The double peer-reviewed "Climate Change Reconsidered II," published by the Heartland Institute, explains, "At the current level of 400 parts per million (that is 0.04% of the atmosphere, 4/100s of one percent, a minuscule amount), we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects," such as catastrophic global warming. (emphasis added).

CO2 falling below 250 parts per million is considered the starvation threshold for plant life, which would be the real catastrophe for the human race. See e.g. Princeton Physics Professor Will Happer.

And as the industrial revolution's economic growth has built the modern world, billions have been lifted out of poverty. Global poverty is now slated for extinction. The middle class has been created, now spreading worldwide. Food supplies have burgeoned. Fatal diseases have been slaughtered. Human health and longevity have skyrocketed.

Carbon Tax = Bigger Government


In the movie series "Planet of the Apes," stupid apes originally took over the planet from humans by cutting off the electricity supply, which they were smart enough to know was the foundation of the modern world. Now come the privileged, GOP elites who would do to American and western prosperity what OPEC boycotters did in the 1970s, by raising the price of energy.

Naïve Washington "savants", as they have called themselves, tell us that with the gusher of revenues from the carbon tax, we can give the money right back to the people with revenue neutral rebates. We can finance income tax cuts, and roll back energy squelching regulations.

But who could be silly enough to think we could run trillions of increased taxes through Washington, without seeing it eaten up with increased, wasteful, counterproductive government spending. It wouldn't even reduce the deficit. And President Trump is already rolling back energy-squelching regulations, on his way to American energy dominance, beyond just independence.

We don't need to fuel the Washington bureaucracy, and further flood the Washington swamp, pouring oil on the bonfire with trillions of increased taxes paid by the middle class, the poor, and working people. That would be the true "Bonfire of the Vanities."

Ferrara, senior fellow for legal affairs at the Heartland Institute, and senior policy advisor for the National Tax Limitation Foundation, teaches economics at Kings College in New York City. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan. He also served as associate deputy attorney general of the U.S. under President George H.W. Bush.