Grassley's Oversight Investigation into the political corruption of the FBI and DOJ

[TSA]

Honestly dude is there any credible source out there that agrees with you that all these entities are fucked the way you say they are?

Depends what you define as credible. If you just read MSM than no you won't find any agreeing with me. Many in the MSM are guilty as well as they were paid by Fusion GPS to peddle salacious lies. Instead of reporting honestly on what is being uncovered they try to distort or bury.

How The Media Buried Two Huge FBI Stories Yesterday

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/how-the-media-buried-two-huge-fbi-stories-yesterday/

[Pavlov]

Honestly dude is there any credible source out there that agrees with you that all these entities are fucked the way you say they are?https://blog.publix.com/careers/files/2014/10/10320404_671448556237517_6811997792417980337_n.jpg

[Blake]

https://blog.publix.com/careers/files/2014/10/10320404_671448556237517_6811997792417980337_n.jpg

Lol

[Blake]

Depends what you define as credible. If you just read MSM than no you won't find any agreeing with me. Many in the MSM are guilty as well as they were paid by Fusion GPS to peddle salacious lies. Instead of reporting honestly on what is being uncovered they try to distort or bury.

How The Media Buried Two Huge FBI Stories Yesterday

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/how-the-media-buried-two-huge-fbi-stories-yesterday/

I like how The Federalist, a media outlet, is claiming media buried stories.

No, a far right wing website isn't credible

[Pavlov]

Depends what you define as credible. If you just read MSM than no you won't find any agreeing with me. Many in the MSM are guilty as well as they were paid by Fusion GPS to peddle salacious lies. Instead of reporting honestly on what is being uncovered they try to distort or bury.

How The Media Buried Two Huge FBI Stories Yesterday

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/how-the-media-buried-two-huge-fbi-stories-yesterday/Muh Federalist is all over the Rob Porter story.

lol

[Chris]

Muh Federalist is all over the Rob Porter story.

lol

What's an appropriate news source for Pavlov?

[Pavlov]

What's an appropriate news source for Pavlov?Not Lee Stranahan.

lol

[Chris]

Not Lee Stranahan.

lol

You didn't answer the question Pavlov.

What's an appropriate news source for Pavlov?

[Chris]

GOP Rep: Benghazi, Fast and Furious Connected to Obama FBI & DOJ Exposed In FISA Memo (AUDIO)


In an explosive interview with Breitbart Radio Wednesday, firebrand conservative Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said Justice Department and FBI corruption, outlined in the FISA abuse memo, is connected to Obama-era scandals, such as Benghazi and Fast and Furious.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/pjimage-82-1-600x338.jpg



Partial transcript via Breitbart News:

“If you don’t think the [Operation] Fast and Furious—attacking the Second Amendment—along with Operation Choke Point, you know that sacred amendment that holds our government accountable and protection for all the other amendments, if you don’t think Benghazi and the lack of accountability when they knew something was going to come, if you don’t think that the IRS and the attacking of your adversaries financially, and the unmasking are unrelated things, think again,” Rep. Gosar told Breitbart News.

“You know, this previous administration—the Obama administration—micromanaged everything out of the White House. And I challenge people, remember the Syrian strikes that were actually handpicked and dictated by the president at that time. This gentleman was involved in everything. That’s where all this leads. When you look at the cover-up with the email scandal with Hillary Clinton, it gets—it should have pointed out exactly what we’ve been talking about, that this was the weaponization of our Justice Department not only to cover up for the previous administration and the wrongdoing and ills of them and those associated with them, but also to attack a sitting president—actually a candidate at the time, then president-elect and then a current, sitting president you know of an opposition party.”

If you thought the FISA abuse memo would be the sole report on FBI and Justice Department corruption, House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes may have a surprise.

According to Axios, the Committee could publish up to five more reports outlining “politically motivated “wrongdoing” across various agencies, including the FBI, the broader Justice Department, and the State Department.”

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York concluded his recent article summarizing the memo’s key FISA abuses by warning a new showdown between Republicans and Democrats could resurface when additional information is released.

Translation: the FISA memo could be the first of many memos exposing corruption at both the FBI and Justice Department.

York writes:

Finally, the memo released today does not represent the sum total of what House investigators have learned in their review of the FBI and Justice Department Trump-Russia investigation. That means the fight over the memo could be replayed in the future when the Intelligence Committee decides to release more information.

It is not clear what information congressional investigators will release.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/gop-rep-benghazi-fast-furious-connected-obama-fbi-doj-exposed-fisa-memo-audio/

[clambake]

explosive!

[Blake]

Golly an explosive interview with Republican on breitbart.

What's not credible about that

[Pavlov]

You didn't answer the question Pavlov.

What's an appropriate news source for Pavlov?There are many. Straight news is totally easy to find from sources that are labeled right or left. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, local papers, NPR, talk radio news breaks, actual news reports on cable channels. The point is to not just take one Lee Stranahan video and breathlessly post it as news.

[TSA]

I like how The Federalist, a media outlet, is claiming media buried stories.

No, a far right wing website isn't credible

Actually the Federalist claimed major outlets didn’t report on the stories and then backed up their claim. You’d have known that had you actually read the article instead of dismissing because muh far right.

What would you consider credible Blake?

[Chris]

NYT, WaPo, WSJ,NPR,

Those are left leaning besides WSJ. I imagine there are a few you are ashamed to mention like MSNBC etc..You've been pushing Russian collusion for over a year...You have no right to lecture or mock anyone on where they get their news.

[TSA]

BREAKING: Another Longtime Aide To James Comey OUT at FBI

Michael Kortan, the FBI’s Head of Public Affairs and longtime aide to former bureau chief James Comey, is leaving his post.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/james-comey-sad-450x270-1-600x361.jpg

961688261667311618

That damn OIG investigation has em all running scared

[Chris]

* Source: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings?page=5

[Chris]

961688261667311618

That damn OIG investigation has em all running scared

Rats from a sinking ship

[spurraider21]

wonder what all the retiring republican congressman are running scared from...

[KenMcCoy]

Is it possible that Laufman signed an emergency surveillance order?

[Pavlov]

Those are left leaning besides WSJ. I imagine there are a few you are ashamed to mention like MSNBC etc..Already mentioned.
You've been pushing Russian collusion for over a year...You have no right to lecture or mock anyone on where they get their news.
I can mock you for posting a video from an American working for the Russian government.

[Pavlov]

Actually the Federalist claimed major outlets didn’t report on the stories and then backed up their claim. You’d have known that had you actually read the article instead of dismissing because muh far right.

What would you consider credible Blake?I claim muh Federalist buried the Rob Porter story.

[TSA]

I claim muh Federalist buried the Rob Porter story.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/top-white-house-aide-resigns-after-allegations-of-abuse-resurface/

What’s your definition of burying a story?

[TSA]

Rats from a sinking ship

Forgot about Rybicki

961743434577985536

[Pavlov]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/top-white-house-aide-resigns-after-allegations-of-abuse-resurface/

What’s your definition of burying a story?Not covering it at all probably counts. Just did a cursory look over the past couple days. Must have just posted that after being scooped. Apologies if I overlooked.

It's not like the difference between ordering a report and ordering an investigation.

[spurraider21]

Is it possible that Laufman signed an emergency surveillance order?
the subsequent application would still have to go back and explain the need for the emergency surveillance. that certainly would have come up in the memo, considering Gowdy read the full fisa warrant application

[TSA]

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/h2.jpg

damn...either the FISC judge was misled or in on the fix.

[spurraider21]

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/h2.jpg

damn...either the FISC judge was misled or in on the fix.
did the yahoo article have any corroboration or sources besides steele?

do we know to what extent the judge relied on the yahoo article in granting the warrant?

[Chris]

qxirza1fDno

[TSA]

did the yahoo article have any corroboration or sources besides steele?”Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was “a bit beyond me” that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.”

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

“My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.

“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

“My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.

“So it seems a little odd that they would be citing the Yahoo! News story about the matter that they are investigating themselves based on the same material that had been separately presented to the FBI before I was ever briefed by Christopher Steele.”



do we know to what extent the judge relied on the yahoo article in granting the warrant? After reading that excerpt from the Grassley memo that’s your fucking concern? :rollin

The bulk of the application is the Steele dossier claims with no additional information corroborating them, with exception of the Isikoff article. :rollin


It’s shocking to me that you of all people are still fighting tooth and nail to deny what actually transpired.

[TSA]

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele

:rollin

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/democratic-sen-mark-warner-texted-with-russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele

[ElNono]

It’s shocking to me that you of all people are still fighting tooth and nail to deny what actually transpired.

Deny? He's asking the right questions, you're the one playing 'connect the dots' on allegation, the burden of proof is on you...

It's a secret court (which is bad enough), and real solutions were offered in the past, like having an opposition lawyer representing citizens, that never went anywhere (with the previous or current administration).

[KenMcCoy]

the subsequent application would still have to go back and explain the need for the emergency surveillance. that certainly would have come up in the memo, considering Gowdy read the full fisa warrant application

I'm not seeing a disclosure requirement like that in the statutes. Where did you see it? I might have missed something...

[ElNono]

I'm way more concerned that after these alleged abuses, Congress keeps authorizing the overreach and secrecy of that court (a court that, for those that forgot, gained a lot of it's powers with the Patriot Act, on a different Republican administration) under the mantra of national security...

So, even if we were to play "jump to conclusions", as our buddy TSA here, what is being done to rein in the court's power? What assurances we have this won't happen again in the future by this or any future administrations, regardless of their party denomination?

[TSA]

Deny? He's asking the right questions, you're the one playing 'connect the dots' on allegation, the burden of proof is on you...

It's a secret court (which is bad enough), and real solutions were offered in the past, like having an opposition lawyer representing citizens, that never went anywhere (with the previous or current administration).

“he’s asking the right questions”

:lol today’s lawyers

[ElNono]

I still remember FromWayDowntown actually mentioning exactly this scenario back in the day when (R)s here were defending the Patriot Act, tbh... "you do understand that if you hand over that kind of power to the executive, eventually a Democrat can actually use that power, right? I don't want you ever complaining about that, ever"... deja vu.

[ElNono]

“he’s asking the right questions”

:lol today’s lawyers

He was asking you for evidence, but then you say he's 'denying'... I guess there's a communication problem somewhere, tbh.

[TSA]

I'm way more concerned that after these alleged abuses, Congress keeps authorizing the overreach and secrecy of that court (a court that, for those that forgot, gained a lot of it's powers with the Patriot Act, on a different Republican administration) under the mantra of national security...

So, even if we were to play "jump to conclusions", as our buddy TSA here, what is being done to rein in the court's power? What assurances we have this won't happen again in the future by this or any future administrations, regardless of their party denomination?

I’m not even sure the court is the problem. The problem seems to be the abuse of powers granted by the court. Nunes directly addresses those with a laundry list of amendments added before 702 reauthorized.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/s_139_text_as_amended.pdf

[TSA]

He was asking you for evidence, but then you say he's 'denying'... I guess there's a communication problem somewhere, tbh.

It’s a long running pattern of what and from whom he asks for evidence.

[KenMcCoy]

I'm way more concerned that after these alleged abuses, Congress keeps authorizing the overreach and secrecy of that court (a court that, for those that forgot, gained a lot of it's powers with the Patriot Act, on a different Republican administration) under the mantra of national security...

So, even if we were to play "jump to conclusions", as our buddy TSA here, what is being done to rein in the court's power? What assurances we have this won't happen again in the future by this or any future administrations, regardless of their party denomination?

Agree 100%. Changes need to happen to eliminate these scenarios in the future.

[TSA]

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele

:rollin

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/democratic-sen-mark-warner-texted-with-russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-dossier-author-christopher-steele.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele


961762010924011522

[ElNono]

I’m not even sure the court is the problem. The problem seems to be the abuse of powers granted by the court. Nunes directly addresses those with a laundry list of amendments added before 702 reauthorized.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/s_139_text_as_amended.pdf

The bolded is an oxymoron.

Section 702 was actually issued as the Protect America Act of 2007 was set to expire, and basically uses the same wording. Signed into law by dubya himself.

It was set to expire on Dec 31st, 2012, but was extended by the senate two days prior, and extension for 5 years (expiration of Dec 31st, 2017).

And no, Nunes simply added more procedural steps that don't really address the fact that as long as this is a secret court, with secret, confidential decisions, no citizen representation, etc, it suffers from a dramatic credibility problem and it's wide open for abuse.

Don't want to just pile on Nunes, Democrats voted for this shit repeatedly as well.

[ElNono]

tbh, maybe spurraider21 is Barry's lawyer...

damn, they grow up so fast, tbh...

[ElNono]

And to save some time, let me explain why it's an oxymoron: this particular court doesn't have two sides and a judge. It has one side and a judge. It's the executive and the executive is also doing the monitoring (yes, even with the Nunes amendments), gee, isn't that great.

So, even if we were to give them good faith in their job to the poor judges, judges sometimes get it wrong. Heck, it happens all the time. Lower courts get overruled on appeal, they get overruled by the SCOTUS.

But there's no appeal process here, since there's no challenger side. This whole court construct is nothing like our judiciary, where transparency and the ability to challenge rulings is the norm.

It's a broken system (on purpose, at this point, it's been over 10 years) to pretend there's some sort of oversight.

If you know any history about FISA, and why it came to existence (Nixon actually eavesdropping on journalists), this whole thing is a complete travesty.

[TSA]

The bolded is an oxymoron.

Section 702 was actually issued as the Protect America Act of 2007 was set to expire, and basically uses the same wording. Signed into law by dubya himself.

It was set to expire on Dec 31st, 2012, but was extended by the senate two days prior, and extension for 5 years (expiration of Dec 31st, 2017).

And no, Nunes simply added more procedural steps that don't really address the fact that as long as this is a secret court, with secret, confidential decisions, no citizen representation, etc, it suffers from a dramatic credibility problem and it's wide open for abuse.

Don't want to just pile on Nunes, Democrats voted for this shit repeatedly as well.

You think Nunes just added more procedural steps? Have you really read the new bill as recently amended?

[ElNono]

You think Nunes just added more procedural steps? Have you really read the new bill as recently amended?

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/s_139_text_as_amended.pdf

[TSA]

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/s_139_text_as_amended.pdf

We are concerned with separate yet related issues. You are more concerned with the FISC itself. I’m more concerned with the abuses from those granted power by the court. Nunes amendments directly address my concerns.

[ElNono]

You wanna go over them one by one?

Basically, anything reading "The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt..." it's the executive monitoring the executive...

Anything where the FBI has to allege it's a natsec matter, well, what's stopping them?

Rinse, repeat...

Judge got it wrong? Who's going to challenge that? Nobody obviously, there's no adversarial side on that court. Did Nunes fix that? Obviously not, that's not the intent.

[ElNono]

We are concerned with separate yet related issues. You are more concerned with the FISC itself. I’m more concerned with the abuses from those granted power by the court. Nunes amendments directly address my concerns.

Any court can, mistakenly, grant relative powers. The real justice comes from actually being able to challenge that.

The fact that this court does not operate like any judiciary court, it's the problem. The court is the problem. No procedural amendments can fix a sham court.

[ElNono]

FWIW, I don't blame Nunes, even if he wanted to sink that court, he can't. It's a great tool for politicians, and both parties are well aware of the niceties of a secret court that largely rubberstamps their requests...

(see here for some stats: https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/06/28/confirmed-the-fisa-court-is-less-of-a-rubber-stamp-than-title-iii-courts/)

[ElNono]

Looking at those stats, you can see also why you can't sink that court. Even regular judges don't get in the way of LEO generally speaking. The difference with Article III, is that you can actually challenge later on whether the surveillance was legit, and you can access the documents, etc. None of that applies to FISC.

[spurraider21]

I'm not seeing a disclosure requirement like that in the statutes. Where did you see it? I might have missed something...
(e)Emergency orders(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=31&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=37&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) if the Attorney General—(A)reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=38&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) to obtain foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;

(B)reasonably determines that the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=39&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) exists;

(C)informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803) at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance; and

(D)makes an application in accordance with this subchapter to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803) as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance

emergency surveillance still must be followed up with an application that would have to justify the surveillance. otherwise it gets thrown out

(5)In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=42&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

[spurraider21]

did the yahoo article have any corroboration or sources besides steele?

do we know to what extent the judge relied on the yahoo article in granting the warrant?


After reading that excerpt from the Grassley memo that’s your fucking concern? :rollin


Deny? He's asking the right questions, you're the one playing 'connect the dots' on allegation, the burden of proof is on you...

It's a secret court (which is bad enough), and real solutions were offered in the past, like having an opposition lawyer representing citizens, that never went anywhere (with the previous or current administration).


“he’s asking the right questions”

:lol today’s lawyers
https://i.imgur.com/CHn6z8T.gif

[Blake]

Actually the Federalist claimed major outlets didn’t report on the stories and then backed up their claim. You’d have known that had you actually read the article instead of dismissing because muh far right.

What would you consider credible Blake?

The article is whining about other media outlets report/don't report. It's a fucking conspiracy piece.

I'm good with a source who follows rules of journalism 101. Then if the facts can be confirmed by other media outlets, even better.

[TSA]

961802557646569475

no mercy :lol

[ElNono]

actually, if we're going to play the jump to conclusions game, the fact that Trump feels like posting "see, meeting with russians is not weird" is pretty stupid :lol

[TSA]

actually, if we're going to play the jump to conclusions game, the fact that Trump feels like posting "see, meeting with russians is not weird" is pretty stupid :lol

Stupider than the guy railing against meeting with Russians for a year?

[ElNono]

Stupider than the guy railing against meeting with Russians for a year?

I don't know what you're comparing levels of stupid against, but on it's own it's pretty stupid, yeah. I mean, if he feels he's clean, there's nothing else to add, right?

[TSA]

I don't know what you're comparing levels of stupid against, but on it's own it's pretty stupid, yeah. I mean, if he feels he's clean, there's nothing else to add, right?

If you were clean wouldn’t you rub the actual dirty ones noses in it constantly? I sure the fuck would.

[TSA]

https://blog.publix.com/careers/files/2014/10/10320404_671448556237517_6811997792417980337_n.jpg

ITT produce manager sets himself apart from subforum shitposter

950187779010519040

Lawyer21 please fact check above

[Blake]

If you were clean wouldn’t you rub the actual dirty ones noses in it constantly? I sure the fuck would.

Or if you're dirty try to get the attention away from you

[ElNono]

If you were clean wouldn’t you rub the actual dirty ones noses in it constantly? I sure the fuck would.

I'll rub the investigation conclusion in everybody's noses, not try to establish that everybody's doing it, but I'm the only sucker getting investigated! :lol

It's stupid. Like the 'levels of stupid' defense. We all know Wild Cobra posts stupid shit all the time, is it ok because boutons posts more stupid shit? It's still stupid.

[Pavlov]

961802557646569475

no mercy :lol961768764747415553

no mercy :lol

[Reck]

961768764747415553

no mercy :lol

Was this the "dirt" Assange had on Warner when he private message the fake Hannity Twitter account? :lol

[TSA]

961768764747415553

no mercy :lolLooks like the OIG caught Warner and informed his staff in Sep 2017.

Warner informed the committee in Sep 2017...he was in contact with Russian agent in March 2017. Why did it take Warner 7 months to inform the committee? Why didn't the committee demand an immediate public disclosure?

[Blake]

Why did it take Warner 7 months to inform the committee? Why didn't the committee demand an immediate public disclosure?

Why did Bush just sit there and continue to read to the kids after being told that planes were hitting the towers?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why did Bush just sit there and continue to read to the kids after being told that planes were hitting the towers?

What does blueteamblake think Bush should have done?

[SpursforSix]

Why did Bush just sit there and continue to read to the kids after being told that planes were hitting the towers?

Would it have been better if he jumped up and said "what the fuck, we're under attack!!?! get to that choppaaaa!!!!". Then shove his way through the kids.

[Spurminator]

Looks like the OIG caught Warner and informed his staff in Sep 2017.

Warner informed the committee in Sep 2017...he was in contact with Russian agent in March 2017. Why did it take Warner 7 months to inform the committee? Why didn't the committee demand an immediate public disclosure?

(Tweet by President Donald J. Trump) ---> "LOL no mercy"
(Rebuttal tweet) ---> "We should scrutinize whether people here are being forthcoming."

[Reck]

Does it matter anyway? Seems like his own colleagues are bother none about it. Hence the Marco Rubio tweet.

[Pavlov]

Looks like the OIG caught Warner and informed his staff in Sep 2017.

Warner informed the committee in Sep 2017...he was in contact with Russian agent in March 2017. Why did it take Warner 7 months to inform the committee? Why didn't the committee demand an immediate public disclosure?Ask them. All the committees are controlled by Republicans.

Also let me know what the big deal is.

Also tell me how ordering a report and ordering an investigation are exactly the same thing.

[Spurminator]

Does it matter anyway? Seems like his own colleagues are bother none about it. Hence the Marco Rubio tweet.

They're all part of the cover up. Everyone is Deep State. Everyone is against Dear Leader.

[Blake]

What does blueteamblake think Bush should have done?


Would it have been better if he jumped up and said "what the fuck, we're under attack!!?! get to that choppaaaa!!!!". Then shove his way through the kids.

The point is that he was calm because he already knew the attacks were gonna happen. Duh.

[ElNono]

Does it matter anyway? Seems like his own colleagues are bother none about it. Hence the Marco Rubio tweet.

So what are the odds of a "Little Marco Rubio..." tweet forthcoming, tbh? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

The point is that he was calm because he already knew the attacks were gonna happen. Duh.

Oh really? Please expound on your theory.

[Blake]

Oh really? Please expound on your theory.

Bush was in on it. Duh.

[CosmicCowboy]

And the Spurstalk Double Dumbass Award goes to...

Blake!

[Pavlov]

Looks like he's just showing how jumps to conspiracy happen.

[Blake]

Looks like he's just showing how jumps to conspiracy happen.

Lol CC

[TSA]

These fucks can't keep their stories straight. It's no longer Papadopoulos that kick started the investigation, it's now Brennan.

How CIA Director John Brennan Targeted James Comey

Snip

Brennan has himself previously taken credit for initiating the inquiry. While on Meet the Press, Brennan suggested that the British sent their intelligence on to the FBI, in his May testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he indicated it came from him directly.

“I was aware,” Brennan said in May, “of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion—cooperation occurred.”

Brennan continued: “I wanted to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the bureau [FBI] so that they could take it. It was well beyond my mandate as director of CIA to follow on any of those leads that involved U.S. persons. But I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.”

In other words, the FBI investigation didn’t start when the Australians, according to the Times—or the Brits, according to Brennan’s most recent version of the story—contacted the FBI after the Papadopoulos-Downer meeting. No, it started when the director of the CIA decided to start an investigation, when Brennan passed on information and intelligence to the FBI, and signaled that the bureau better act on it.

The former CIA director has some questions to answer, then. What precisely was his role in initiating the FBI probe into the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia? Will he disclose where the intelligence actually came from? Was it volunteered by one of America’s closest allies, or did U.S. officials request to search allies’ databases for the communications of American citizens? If so, under what authority were American allies being used to help an American intelligence agency spy on a domestic political campaign?

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey

rest of article worth the read

[Pavlov]

These fucks can't keep their stories straight. It's no longer Papadopoulos that kick started the investigation, it's now Brennan.

How CIA Director John Brennan Targeted James Comey

Snip

Brennan has himself previously taken credit for initiating the inquiry. While on Meet the Press, Brennan suggested that the British sent their intelligence on to the FBI, in his May testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he indicated it came from him directly.

“I was aware,” Brennan said in May, “of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion—cooperation occurred.”

Brennan continued: “I wanted to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the bureau [FBI] so that they could take it. It was well beyond my mandate as director of CIA to follow on any of those leads that involved U.S. persons. But I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.”

In other words, the FBI investigation didn’t start when the Australians, according to the Times—or the Brits, according to Brennan’s most recent version of the story—contacted the FBI after the Papadopoulos-Downer meeting. No, it started when the director of the CIA decided to start an investigation, when Brennan passed on information and intelligence to the FBI, and signaled that the bureau better act on it.

The former CIA director has some questions to answer, then. What precisely was his role in initiating the FBI probe into the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia? Will he disclose where the intelligence actually came from? Was it volunteered by one of America’s closest allies, or did U.S. officials request to search allies’ databases for the communications of American citizens? If so, under what authority were American allies being used to help an American intelligence agency spy on a domestic political campaign?

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey

rest of article worth the readThat completely jibes with the dates I gave you yesterday.

This stuff isn't too hard to keep track of if you're not trying to make a conspiracy out of everything you see.

[Blake]

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey

rest of article worth the read

Probably not.

http://www.tabletmag.com/about

TSA pushing unbiased Jewish news

[koriwhat]

Bush was in on it. Duh.

i wouldn't doubt it.

[spurraider21]

Probably not.

http://www.tabletmag.com/about

TSA pushing unbiased Jewish news
antisemitism good now

[Pavlov]

Probably not.

http://www.tabletmag.com/about

TSA pushing unbiased Jewish newsReligion notwithstanding they're still trying to push the Obama Cinton email text conspiracy TSA recently failed with. :lmao

[Blake]

i wouldn't doubt it.

To the surprise of no one

[TSA]

That completely jibes with the dates I gave you yesterday.

This stuff isn't too hard to keep track of if you're not trying to make a conspiracy out of everything you see.

Weren't you recently saying it was Papadopolous that started the investigation?

How did the investigation start?

Brennan
Papadopolous
Steele

[Pavlov]

Weren't you recently saying it was Papadopolous that started the investigation? No.

You asked when the investigation started and I answered with the date and two links you didn't read.

Yesterday.

In this thread.

Why do you demand answers and links to questions when you don't read any of them, TSA?

[koriwhat]

To the surprise of no one

why do you believe he(that family) wasn't part of it? i don't trust the bush's, the clinton's, nor the obama's. they're all crooks, liars, and worse.

[spurraider21]

From TSA's article


it began after a meeting between Papadopoulos and the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, in a London bar, back in May 2016.


Todd asked (https://www.nbc.com/meet-the-press/video/meet-the-press-0204/3662088) Brennan if the intelligence on Papadopoulos came “through the C.I.A. via the Five Eyes thing,” referring to the intelligence-sharing relationship between the five English-speaking powers, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Brennan’s response (https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-4-2018-n844541), though, went off-script.

He wasn’t “going to get into details about how it was acquired,” he explained. “But the F.B.I. has a very close relationship with its British counterparts. And so the F.B.I. had visibility into a number of things that were going on involving some individuals who may have had some affiliation with the Trump campaign.”
how the fuck is this disputing the claim that papadopolous started the investigation? the only thing brennan discussed is how they got intel regarding the papadololous meeting

brennan was asked if the info came via the Five Eyes, including the UK, and Brennan confirmed that they have a close relationship with the british. considering this was a meeting with an ambassador to the UK, and it took place in London, i think that's a sensible thing to say

[Blake]

why do you believe he(that family) wasn't part of it?.

Why should i?

[koriwhat]

Why should i

you don't have to blake... i just don't see how questioning most things in this world is seen as bad. bush lied to get us into war, bush lied to get us "out" of war, bush and bush sr. lie like a motherfucker. that's why i don't believe anything they say nor do i put anything past them including being in on 9/11.

[spurraider21]

Weren't you recently saying it was Papadopolous that started the investigation?

How did the investigation start?

Brennan
Papadopolous
are these mutually exclusive?

[TSA]

No.

You asked when the investigation started and I answered with the date and two links you didn't read.

Yesterday.

In this thread.

Why do you demand answers and links to questions when you don't read any of them, TSA?


947143610687946753


Board Republicans might have to wait until after the holidays to be told how to react to this.

You've got a little wiggle room

[Blake]

you don't have to blake... i just don't see how questioning most things in this world is seen as bad. bush lied to get us into war, bush lied to get us "out" of war, bush and bush sr. lie like a motherfucker. that's why i don't believe anything they say nor do i put anything past them including being in on 9/11.

Whatever 9/11 questions about the incidents and people involved you have can be answered sufficiently on the internets if you really want to find out these things. I've done that.

But you don't have to.

[Pavlov]

From TSA's article




how the fuck is this disputing the claim that papadopolous started the investigation? the only thing brennan discussed is how they got intel regarding the papadololous meeting

brennan was asked if the info came via the Five Eyes, including the UK, and Brennan confirmed that they have a close relationship with the british. considering this was a meeting with an ambassador to the UK, and it took place in London, i think that's a sensible thing to say


Yeah, the dates pretty much line up perfectly with the precipitating events when you allow for handoff time between all the agencies involved.


Informal investigation of Russian interference, April 2016:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

Official FBI investigation into Russian interference, July 2016:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-fbi-launched-investigation-into-1490023083-htmlstory.html

Now I'm waiting on your explanation how collusion isn't interference and the links for the dates you have failed to provide.The official investigation began after getting the Papadopolous information.

[Pavlov]

You've got a little wiggle roomIt's was all laid out for you yesterday.

Your attempted conspiracy article actually confirms the real timeline. :lol

[TSA]

From TSA's article




how the fuck is this disputing the claim that papadopolous started the investigation? the only thing brennan discussed is how they got intel regarding the papadololous meeting

brennan was asked if the info came via the Five Eyes, including the UK, and Brennan confirmed that they have a close relationship with the british. considering this was a meeting with an ambassador to the UK, and it took place in London, i think that's a sensible thing to say

Because it was reported that it was Australian officials who passed on the intel to their American counterparts, not the Brits.


"But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired."


So is the NYT article incorrect?

[Pavlov]

are these mutually exclusive?Brennan kept handing off the information he got from foreign services because US citizens were involved.

As is required.

It's so weird how we're discovering just how by the book this all went.

[koriwhat]

Whatever 9/11 questions about the incidents and people involved you have can be answered sufficiently on the internets if you really want to find out these things. I've done that.

But you don't have to.

i was told from kindergarten through high school that columbus discovered america and that native americans sat at a picnic table with the douchebag for thanksgiving. i don't put much trust in the powers to be to tell me the truth.

[TSA]

Brennan kept handing off the information he got from foreign services because US citizens were involved.

As is required.

It's so weird how we're discovering just how by the book this all went.

:lmao

[Pavlov]

:lmaoAfter you breathlessly post something from the grocer or some other alt-right source, they are now getting debunked within a matter of minutes.

:lmao

[TSA]

It's so weird how we're discovering just how by the book this all went.

Meanwhile in reality...


Comey
Strzok
McCabe
Yates
Ohr
Baker
Carlin
Laufman
Kortan

[Pavlov]

Meanwhile in reality...


Comey
Strzok
McCabe
Yates
Ohr
Baker
Carlin
Laufman
KortanThe investigation that has not gone by the book is the house intel committee's.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?

No, you haven't.

:lmao

[spurraider21]

Meanwhile in reality...


Comey
Strzok
McCabe
Yates
Ohr
Baker
Carlin
Laufman
Kortan
why did yates get fired, TSA?

[Pavlov]

why did yates get fired, TSA?Why did Comey get fired, TSA?

[TSA]

why did yates get fired, TSA?

insubordination

We'll be hearing more about her misdeeds when the OIG report comes out, count on it.

[Pavlov]

And you never explained how Obama ordered an investigation in December when the investigation had already been official for five months.

:rollin

[spurraider21]

Because it was reported that it was Australian officials who passed on the intel to their American counterparts, not the Brits.


"But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired."


So is the NYT article incorrect?
so he was asked about the information coming from the Five Eyes, which includes both the UK and Australia, and he made a comment about their close relationship with the british. he also specifically said he wasn't going to discuss how the papadopolous information was acquired

when you also throw in the fact that this meeting was with the ambassador to the UK and occurred in london. theres a lot of room for this to just be confusion... instead of making some retarded assumption that "WAS IT BRENNAN OR PAPADOPOLOUS" is a viable dichotomy

[TSA]

It's so weird how we're discovering just how by the book this all went.

Meanwhile in reality...

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/h2.jpg

[spurraider21]

insubordination
regarding what? Russia investigation? Clinton matter? be specific.


We'll be hearing more about her misdeeds when the OIG report comes out, count on it.
do you have any reason to believe that she had any specific misdeeds in relation to the russia investigation or clinton matter (the latter of which is not part of the OIG investigation)

[TSA]

Why did Comey get fired, TSA?

Memorandum for the Attorney General

FROM: Rod J Rosenstein

SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

What was Clinton FBI probe about?

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision". Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice".

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

[TSA]

regarding what? Russia investigation? Clinton matter? be specific.travel ban

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html



do you have any reason to believe that she had any specific misdeeds in relation to the russia investigation or clinton matter (the latter of which is not part of the OIG investigation) Yes I believe her misdeeds lie in signing off on a misleading FISA application.

The Clinton matter is part of the OIG investigation, you don't know what you are talking about.

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-01-12.pdf

[spurraider21]

travel ban

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html
cool. totally part of the grand cospiracy



Yes I believe her misdeeds lie in signing off on a misleading FISA application.

The Clinton matter is part of the OIG investigation, you don't know what you are talking about.

https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-01-12.pdf
hadn't read that full release. thanks :tu

but how come no mention of the FISA stuff? i thought horowitz was doing that too?

[Blake]

i was told from kindergarten through high school that columbus discovered america and that native americans sat at a picnic table with the douchebag for thanksgiving. i don't put much trust in the powers to be to tell me the truth.

Yeah uh it was never said anywhere that Columbus had thanksgiving with the native Americans.

You're pretty lazy and stupid, tbh.

[koriwhat]

Yeah uh it was never said anywhere that Columbus had thanksgiving with the native Americans.

You're pretty lazy and stupid, tbh.

jesus blake, take a breath. i try to joke with you but you just don't find anything humorous do you? that sucks buddy. anyhow, have a great day!

[Pavlov]

Memorandum for the Attorney General

FROM: Rod J Rosenstein

SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

What was Clinton FBI probe about?

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would "speak" about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or "conceal" it. "Conceal" is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision". Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice".

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.:lmao


Now post the pro-Comey memo they made Rosenstein write.

[spurraider21]

.

[Blake]

jesus blake, take a breath. i try to joke with you but you just don't find anything humorous do you? that sucks buddy. anyhow, have a great day!

No, i find you humorous. Just not in the way you think.

[koriwhat]

No, i find you humorous. Just not in the way you think.

so angry, raging, meltdown... isn't that the shtick around these parts?

[Blake]

so angry, raging, meltdown... isn't that the shtick around these parts?

Yeah that's part of what makes you hilarious

[TSA]

cool. totally part of the grand cospiracy



hadn't read that full release. thanks :tu

but how come no mention of the FISA stuff? i thought horowitz was doing that too?

That was the initial release and was the OIG investigation was started at the request of Democrats. Like Mueller, Horowitz's investigation takes him where ever the evidence leads.

[koriwhat]

Yeah that's part of what makes you hilarious

that was directed at you blake... duh!

[spurraider21]

That was the initial release and was the OIG investigation was started at the request of Democrats. Like Mueller, Horowitz's investigation takes him where ever the evidence leads.
is there anything supporting the notion that they are looking at FISA stuff?

[TSA]

is there anything supporting the notion that they are looking at FISA stuff?

OIG office has been supplying both intel committees with source documents. Horowitz has written responses to all of the requests that are available online I just don't have the time to dig through them today.

this guy posts pretty much every document back and forth from the intel committees and OIG. I don't have a twitter account so not able to search his account.

https://twitter.com/davenyviii?lang=en

[Blake]

that was directed at you blake... duh!

Redirected

[koriwhat]

Redirected

whatever blake

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVjq4MmWAAUBSaF.jpg:large

[Chris]

GUARANTEED! :tu:tu:tu



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVnyGfqVMAAizj0.jpg

[TSA]

Nunes seeks transcripts from Carter Page FISA warrant hearing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/09/nunes-seeks-transcripts-from-carter-page-fisa-warrant-hearing.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/371151684/Nunes-letter-to-FISC#from_embed

:bobo

[Chris]

Nunes seeks transcripts from Carter Page FISA warrant hearing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/09/nunes-seeks-transcripts-from-carter-page-fisa-warrant-hearing.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/371151684/Nunes-letter-to-FISC#from_embed

:bobo

Nunes

[spurraider21]

Who does this sound like? (Read thread)

961208575774240768

[Chris]

Proof - no conspiracy.


http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-08-at-1.27.16-PM-620x106.png



Looks like the FBI lied to the FISA courts.

[TSA]

961734488375136257

[Chris]

Another one bites the dust! Totally nothing to see here folks :lol


BREAKING: Third-Highest Ranking Justice Department Official RESIGNING

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/rachel-brand-feat-uproxx-600x332.jpg


The third-highest ranking Justice Department official, Rachel Brand, is leaving her post, reports the New York Times.

Rachel L. Brand, the No. 3 official at the Justice Department, plans to step down after nine months on the job as the country’s top law enforcement agency has been under attack by President Trump, according to two people briefed on her decision. Ms. Brand’s profile had risen in part because she is next in the line of succession behind the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, who is overseeing the special counsel’s inquiry into Russian influence in the 2016 election. Mr. Trump, who has called the investigation a witch hunt, has considered firing Mr. Rosenstein. Such a move could have put her in charge of the special counsel and, by extension, left her in the cross hairs of the president. Ms. Brand, who became the associate attorney general in May 2017, is leaving for a job as general counsel in the private sector. She has held politically appointed positions at the Justice Department over the past three presidential administrations.
Brand holds an extensive portfolio overseeing the Department’s antitrust and civil rights divisions. The outgoing official was instrumental in extending the National Security Agency’s “warrantless surveillance program.”

Brand joins a growing list of key officials leaving the FBI/DOJ cabal amid Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s probe into the bureau’s Clinton email investigation.

Top Justice Department official, David Laufman, who helped oversee the Hillary Clinton email investigation resigned Wednesday, reported the Washington Post.

Former FBI special agent Josh Campbell recently quit the bureau to join CNN, citing increasing levels of criticism directed at the agency.

In a New York Times op-ed, Campbell wrote, “To be effective, the F.B.I. must be believed and must maintain the support of the public it serves. … These political attacks on the bureau must stop.”

“If those critics of the agency persuade the public that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation less safe,” Campbell added.

In what was a significant shakeup at the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe stepped down January 29th.

“McCabe, who served a brief stint as acting director of the bureau, was already expected to leave. He will stay on ‘terminal leave’ until he is eligible to retire with benefits in March,” reported CNBC.

According to the Washington Post, McCabe intended to resign from the FBI once he was eligible for full pension benefits in March.

In late January, James Rybicki, a top FBI official who was once chief of staff to James Comey and current Bureau Director Christopher Wray, resigned as well.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/breaking-third-highest-ranking-justice-department-official-resigning/

TSA

rY0WxgSXdEE

[DarrinS]

You really are too stupid to live you worthless piece of shit

^Trigglypuff

[Chris]

^Trigglypuff

trollypuff - ignore tbh

[Chris]

Disgusting

962085512667332609

[TSA]

Another one bites the dust! Totally nothing to see here folks :lol


BREAKING: Third-Highest Ranking Justice Department Official RESIGNING

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/rachel-brand-feat-uproxx-600x332.jpg



TSA

rY0WxgSXdEE:bobo


It's so weird how we're discovering just how by the book this all went.

Meanwhile in reality...


Comey
Strzok
McCabe
Yates
Ohr
Baker
Carlin
Laufman
Kortan
Rybicki
Brand

[Blake]

Lol Huckabee.

[clambake]

Disgusting

962085512667332609

so what? he shouldn't have had a mule horse for a daughter.

[TSA]

Here is some Friday afternoon reading entertainment. For all of those that thought the Nunes memo was a nothingburger you're going to have to come up with a new term for Schiff's memo :lol He get's absolutely destroyed in this meeting.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180205/106838/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180205.pdf

[Blake]

I'll guess nothing happens to Schiff and you misread the meeting notes somehow.

[spurraider21]

apparently if you aren't anti-abortion, you should be fired as a government lawyer

ah, the infinite wisdom of mike huckabee

at least he plays a mean bass

[Chris]

at least he plays a mean bass

Seriously? That makes him pretty cool imo

[Chris]

EBqnVlFDotc

[Pavlov]

Another one bites the dust! Totally nothing to see here folks :lol


BREAKING: Third-Highest Ranking Justice Department Official RESIGNING

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/rachel-brand-feat-uproxx-600x332.jpg



TSA

rY0WxgSXdEEUh, you're saying another Trump appointee bites the dust and celebrating.

Honestly, you guys never read anything.

:lol

[Chris]

Uh, you're saying another Trump appointee bites the dust and celebrating.

:lol

Gowdy shits all over Dems here..did you watch? :lol

EBqnVlFDotc

[Pavlov]

Gowdy shits all over Dems here..did you watch? :lol

EBqnVlFDotc:lmao trying to change the subject.

[Blake]

Uh, you're saying another Trump appointee bites the dust and celebrating.

Honestly, you guys never read anything.

:lol

:lol

[TSA]

Uh, you're saying another Trump appointee bites the dust and celebrating.

Honestly, you guys never read anything.

:lol

Some rats take longer to expose themselves

[TSA]

Here is some Friday afternoon reading entertainment. For all of those that thought the Nunes memo was a nothingburger you're going to have to come up with a new term for Schiff's memo :lol He get's absolutely destroyed in this meeting.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180205/106838/HMTG-115-IG00-Transcript-20180205.pdf
Pavlov you seemed to think the Schiff memo was pretty important, after reading the dismantling of it here do you still feel the same?

[Pavlov]

Some rats take longer to expose themselvesWhat are you saying she did, TSA?

Give a list of her transgressions.

[Pavlov]

Pavlov you seemed to think the Schiff memo was pretty important, after reading the dismantling of it here do you still feel the same?I haven't read the Schiff memo.

Have you?

Give me a link to it.

[Chris]

I haven't read the Schiff memo.

Have you?

Give me a link to it.

Purportedly it defends the character of Steele and other swamp creatures. You're probably better off reading the funny papers.

[Pavlov]

Purportedly it defends the character of Steele and other swamp creatures. You're probably better off reading the funny papers.
Have you read it?

Got a link to it?

[TSA]

I haven't read the Schiff memo.

Have you?

Give me a link to it.

I haven’t read it either. I have read a detailed breakdown of everything it isn’t in the house meeting provided in the link.

Have you read the link yet? You only need to read the first few pages to see the Schiff memo dismantled.

[Pavlov]

I haven’t read it either. I have read a detailed breakdown of everything it isn’t in the house meeting provided in the link.

Have you read the link yet? You only need to read the first few pages to see the Schiff memo dismantled.So, the memo isn't even out yet and you haven't read it?

Is that what you're saying?

[TSA]

Purportedly it defends the character of Steele and other swamp creatures. You're probably better off reading the funny papers.

It definitely doesn’t refute the Nunes memo as claimed.

[spurraider21]

there's not much to refute tbh :lol

[TSA]

So, the memo isn't even out yet and you haven't read it?

Is that what you're saying?

I clearly said I hadn’t read it, but keep the tired schtick going.

The Schiff memo is discussed by house members who have read the memo and they dismantle it in the link. Have you read the transcript from the house meeting yet?

[TSA]

there's not much to refute tbh :lol

That makes the Schiff memo even more embarrassing since it refuted nothing.

[Pavlov]

I clearly said I hadn’t read it, but keep the tired schtick going.

The Schiff memo is discussed by house members who have read the memo and they dismantle it in the link. Have you read the transcript from the house meeting yet?They must be really afraid of it if they are trying to pre-refute it.

Let me know when you read the memo, OK?

[TSA]

I haven’t read it either. I have read a detailed breakdown of everything it isn’t in the house meeting provided in the link.

Have you read the link yet? You only need to read the first few pages to see the Schiff memo dismantled.

More than a few pages actually. Turner starts in on Schiff Page 8

[Chris]

Have you read it?

Got a link to it?

This guy read it @ 2:59

EBqnVlFDotc?t=2m59s

[spurraider21]

I clearly said I hadn’t read it, but keep the tired schtick going.

The Schiff memo is discussed by house members who have read the memo and they dismantle it in the link. Have you read the transcript from the house meeting yet?
:lmao dismantling.

did YOU read it?

[TSA]

They must be really afraid of it if they are trying to pre-refute it.

Let me know when you read the memo, OK?

:lol afraid

They are laughing at his memo.

Why do you refuse to read the meeting transcript? Afraid to see Schiff flounder about after being made a fool?

[Pavlov]

This guy read it @ 2:59

EBqnVlFDotc?t=2m59sI didn't ask if some guy read it.

I asked if you read it and for a link to the memo.

[Pavlov]

:lol afraid

They are laughing at his memo.

Why do you refuse to read the meeting transcript? Afraid to see Schiff flounder about after being made a fool?Your whining about someone not reading something is rich.

You're still have about twenty questions to answer, coward.

[TSA]

:lmao dismantling.

did YOU read it?

Yes.

[TSA]

Your whining about someone not reading something is rich.

You're still have about twenty questions to answer, coward.

Why do you refuse to read the meeting transcript? Aren’t you curious what Schiff’s memo contains?

[Chris]

some guy


Representative John Ratcliffe of the House Judiciary Committee is good enough for me. Trump has to approve it before I can opine. Why are you asking for impossibles again?

[spurraider21]

- Turner acknowledges that they aren't even allowed to discuss what's in the memo. So there's nothing to dismantle

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T contradict the claim that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the dossier. Why would it contradict that? That has never been disputed. :lol

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T contradict that the court was not made aware that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the dossier. Again, we already knew that. From what has been said, the Court was made aware in a footnote that the dossier was of a political origin or political opposition research, even if they didn't specify by name the source. And again, I think it's been learned that it is common practice to do such.

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T "say that it is okay for politically paid material to be used as evidence in a FISA court." That would be something that has to come in legislation. Not an opinion in a fucking memo :lmao

that's the dismantling? :lmao

[spurraider21]

so Turner dismantled the schiff memo by saying the schiff memo doesn't dispute things that it never intended to dispute. fascinating stuff, TSA

[Pavlov]

Why do you refuse to read the meeting transcript? Aren’t you curious what Schiff’s memo contains?I am curious to read Schiff's memo.

Have you read it?

[Pavlov]

so Turner dismantled the schiff memo by saying the schiff memo doesn't dispute things that it never intended to dispute. fascinating stuff, TSA:lol I knew I didn't need to read it.

[spurraider21]

- Turner acknowledges that they aren't even allowed to discuss what's in the memo. So there's nothing to dismantle

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T contradict the claim that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the dossier. Why would it contradict that? That has never been disputed. :lol

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T contradict that the court was not made aware that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the dossier. Again, we already knew that. From what has been said, the Court was made aware in a footnote that the dossier was of a political origin or political opposition research, even if they didn't specify by name the source. And again, I think it's been learned that it is common practice to do such.

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T "say that it is okay for politically paid material to be used as evidence in a FISA court." That would be something that has to come in legislation. Not an opinion in a fucking memo :lmao

that's the dismantling? :lmao
TSA that should have been enough for you to stop trying to make a point, tbh :lol

[spurraider21]

i mean, i'm not expecting schiff's memo to light the world on fire or anything, but this shit is pathetic, TSA. seriously.

[Pavlov]

i mean, i'm not expecting schiff's memo to light the world on fire or anything, but this shit is pathetic, TSA. seriously.Tell me, what's the best thing to read if I want to know about things that aren't in the memo?

[Blake]

Tell me, what's the best thing to read if I want to know about things that aren't in the memo?

The Federalist?

[TSA]

- Turner acknowledges that they aren't even allowed to discuss what's in the memo. So there's nothing to dismantle

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T contradict the claim that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the dossier. Why would it contradict that? That has never been disputed. :lol

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T contradict that the court was not made aware that the DNC and Clinton campaign funded the dossier. Again, we already knew that. From what has been said, the Court was made aware in a footnote that the dossier was of a political origin or political opposition research, even if they didn't specify by name the source. And again, I think it's been learned that it is common practice to do such.

- Turner says the memo DOESN'T "say that it is okay for politically paid material to be used as evidence in a FISA court." That would be something that has to come in legislation. Not an opinion in a fucking memo :lmao

that's the dismantling? :lmao

You seem to have forgotten what the Schiff memo promised to do, which was to provide additional information as a result of misrepresentation of facts in the Nunes memo, which it did not. Schiff doesn’t attempt to refute any claims in the Nunes memo.

[spurraider21]

You seem to have forgotten what the Schiff memo promised to do, which was to provide additional information as a result of misrepresentation of facts in the Nunes memo, which it did not. Schiff doesn’t attempt to refute any claims in the Nunes memo.
we haven't read shiff's memo and nobody in that transcript discussed what was in it :lol

all we have learned is that his memo does not dispute things it wasn't trying to dispute in the first place (funding of dossier, disclosure of name of source)

[TSA]

we haven't read shiff's memo and nobody in that transcript discussed what was in it :lol

all we have learned is that his memo does not dispute things it wasn't trying to dispute in the first place (funding of dossier, disclosure of name of source)

You seem to have forgotten what the Nunes memo claimed.

[TSA]

962057833087840256

Nothing to see here carry on

[spurraider21]

You seem to have forgotten what the Nunes memo claimed.
was the schiff memo supposed to dispute that DNC/Clinton Campaign funded the steele dossier yes or no

[Pavlov]

962057833087840256

Nothing to see here carry onWas?

Maybe he flipped.

But what's your conspiracy theory this time, TSA?

[Chris]

962057833087840256

Nothing to see here carry on

Those were the good Russians. Trump met with the bad ones.

[Chris]

962124098838126593

9Jz1TjCphXE

[Pavlov]

Those were the good Russians. Trump met with the bad ones.So you're saying Adam Waldman is Russian?

[Pavlov]

962124098838126593

9Jz1TjCphXE:lol Damn, Trump is really scared!

[Chris]

:lol Damn, Trump is really scared!

Trump calls the shots. :tu


I'm sure Dems will react with the appropriate outrage and conspiracy theories, pepe sylvia etc...

[Reck]

Trump calls the shots. :tu


I'm sure Dems will react with the appropriate outrage and conspiracy theories, pepe sylvia etc...

Is there anything Trump does you won't shield?

[Pavlov]

Trump calls the shots. :tu


I'm sure Dems will react with the appropriate outrage and conspiracy theories, pepe sylvia etc...:lmao

All Trump has to do is #releasethememo.

He scurred.

[TSA]

:lmao

All Trump has to do is #releasethememo.

He scurred.

Even though it was known Schiff prepared it this way on purpose for idiots like you to eat it up, you still ate it up.

962125763192475648

[Pavlov]

Even though it was known Schiff prepared it this way on purpose for idiots like you to eat it up, you still ate it up.

962125763192475648

Cat Stevens mind control, dude.

[DarrinS]

How Brennan Targeted Comey

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey

[boutons_deux]

:lol Damn, Trump is really scared!

:lol

[Pavlov]

How Brennan Targeted Comey

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255020/how-cia-director-john-brennan-targeted-james-comey

:lol you guys subscribe to this or something?

[TSA]

:lmao

All Trump has to do is #releasethememo.

He scurred.idiot ate it up

962135851403759616

Memo reviewed by DNI and DOJ. Rosenstein and Wray both reviewed.

[Pavlov]

idiot ate it up

962135851403759616

Memo reviewed by DNI and DOJ. Rosenstein and Wray both reviewed.

Cat Stevens is mad!

[spurraider21]

Even though it was known Schiff prepared it this way on purpose for idiots like you to eat it up, you still ate it up.

962125763192475648


961734488375136257
https://i.imgflip.com/24axi7.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Trash obstructing, hiding, firing investigators, he's guilty as fuck

[Chris]

Sign the petition for treason; takes about 15 seconds.


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fbis-surveillance-former-trump-campaign-adviser-controversial-fisa-intelligence-memo-treason

[Pavlov]

Sign the petition for treason; takes about 15 seconds.


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fbis-surveillance-former-trump-campaign-adviser-controversial-fisa-intelligence-memo-treason:rollin

"FBI's surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser in a controversial FISA intelligence memo is treason."

That's even less coherent than your Satanist conspiracies.

[Chris]

Trump said "take that shit back to the kitchen. It ain't ready yet!" :lol


962330457886076928

[Pavlov]

Trump said "take that shit back to the kitchen. It ain't ready yet!" :lol


962330457886076928lol whereupon

[Chris]

She's fucked :lol


962400877901500416

[Pavlov]

She's fucked :lol


962400877901500416Who is Solomon?

[Blake]

She's fucked :lol


962400877901500416

Lol wtf is Lifezette

[Chris]

Lol wtf is Lifezette

There's this thing called a search engine. Really cool. :tu

[Blake]

There's this thing called a search engine. Really cool. :tu

Oh it's as completely right wing biased as you are. Neat.

[Chris]

962378414043910144

[Chris]

962398256910258176

[clambake]

enormity goodness gracious!

[Pavlov]

962378414043910144Hungarian fugitive still hoping "Obamagate" moniker sticks.

lol

[Chris]

962497042886033408

[Pavlov]

962497042886033408"Republicans say Republicans right. Chaffetz resigns."

[Chris]

"Republicans say Republicans right. Chaffetz resigns."

Nice to have someone you can trust in the news for once. Jay Chay

[Chris]

962500732564987904

[Chris]

962496916306251776

[Pavlov]

962500732564987904lol Following the lead of the New York Times.

[Spurminator]

From the screenshot, that looks like it's going to be a wrestling video. No wonder Chris likes it.

[DarrinS]

So we all know that you are a soulless valueless cocksucker who hates yourself because you are in a deep deep homosexual panic. Why not just do the right thing and kill yourself?

one useful thing you could ever do for humanity.


^Trigglypuff

[TSA]

962497042886033408
spurraider21

“Moreover, the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.”

[TSA]

962497042886033408

In a word, the Grassley-Graham memo is shocking. Yet, the press barely notices.

Rest assured: If a Republican administration had used unverifiable hearsay from a patently suspect agent of the Republican presidential candidate to gull the FISA court into granting a warrant to spy on an associate of the Democratic nominee’s campaign, it would be covered as the greatest political scandal in a half-century.

Instead, it was the other way around. The Grassley-Graham memo corroborates the claims in the Nunes memo: The Obama Justice Department and FBI used anonymously sourced, Clinton-campaign generated innuendo to convince the FISA court to issue surveillance warrants against Carter Page, and in doing so, they concealed the Clinton campaign’s role. Though the Trump campaign had cut ties with Page shortly before the first warrant was issued in October 2016, the warrant application was based on wild allegations of a corrupt conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Moreover, the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.

With its verification by the Grassley-Graham memo, the Nunes memo now has about a thousand times more corroboration than the Steele dossier, the basis of the heinous allegations used by the Justice Department and FBI to get the FISA warrants.

What the Grassley-Graham memo tells us is that the Nunes memo, for all the hysteria about it, was tame. The Grassley-Graham memo tells us that we need not only a full-blown investigation of what possessed the Obama administration to submit such shoddy applications to the FISA court, but of how a judge — or perhaps as many as four judges — rationalized signing the warrants.

*

We need full disclosure — the warrants, the applications, the court proceedings. No more games.

Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are senior Republicans on the Judiciary Committee (which Grassley chairs, while Graham chairs a relevant subcommittee). As we’ve previously detailed (in a two-part series, here and here), they composed their memo in support of a criminal referral recommending that dossier author Christopher Steele be investigated for making false statements to the FBI (which is a felony). Initially, the senators’ memo was withheld, then it was released with extensive redactions because its contents were largely classified — covering submissions to the FISA court, the secret tribunal established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But following the release of the Nunes memo — the memo prepared by Republican majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) — Senators Grassley and Graham stepped up their admirable efforts to get more information unsealed . . . so that the public can see it, even if the press prefers not to cover it.

Last Friday, the Nunes memo asserted that the FBI and Justice Department had significantly relied on the unverified Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrants on Page. In the week that followed, House Intelligence Committee Democrats and their media echo chamber bleated about how things had been taken out of context, with some suggesting that there was plenty of other evidence to establish probable cause that Page was acting as a Russian agent. (See my column last Sunday responding to claims by Representative Jerrold Nadler, here.) It was even implied that Nunes & Co. had deceptively reported committee testimony by the FBI’s then deputy director Andrew McCabe that the Steele dossier was essential to this probable-cause showing.

We’re not hearing much of that now. No wonder. Here’s the Grassley-Graham memo on the critical first FISA application, the basis for the warrant granted on October 21, 2016:

The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier.

We’ll come to the news article — the stupefying circular attempt to corroborate Steele with Steele. For the moment, suffice it to say that the senators have confirmed the Nunes memo’s account, except with much more information than House Republicans were able to include. Information such as this:

When asked at the March 2017 briefing [of Judiciary Committee leaders] why the FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration — and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation — then-Director [James] Comey stated that the FBI included the dossier allegations about Carter Page in the FISA applications because Mr. Steele himself was considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau. (Emphasis added.)

On this score, Grassley and Graham quote directly from the warrant applications: “Based on [Steele’s] previous reporting history with the FBI whereby [Steele] provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes [Steele’s] reporting to be credible.” (Emphasis added.)

I cannot stress enough how irregular this is. It is why there is abundant reason to demand that the judge explain his or her rationale for granting the warrant.

As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that.

For purposes of justifying a warrant, it does not matter that, in a totally unrelated investigation (involving corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization), the FBI judged that the hearsay information provided by Steele, then a British agent, checked out. In his anti-Trump research, Steele could not verify his sources. Furthermore, he was now a former foreign intelligence officer who was then working for private clients — which is the advocacy business, not the search-for-truth business.

A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.
Let that sink in, then think about this contrast: No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator. Jim Comey, despite having a résumé geometrically more impressive than Steele’s, including Senate confirmations to some of federal law-enforcement’s loftiest positions, would not be given a warrant based on representations to the court that the FBI, the Justice Department, the president, and the Senate all attested to his impeccable reliability.

The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.

This is not esoterica. In the investigations biz, this is so basic that to call it “Warrants 101” doesn’t do it justice. If you don’t have witnesses with verifiable, first-hand knowledge, you don’t have anything. Without them, to borrow Director Comey’s notorious dictum, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a warrant application to a federal judge, and no reasonable judge would issue a warrant.

If there is no credible sourcing for the factual allegations in the warrant application, that is a probable-cause deficiency that could not have been cured by the reputation of the purveyor of the sources, no matter how sterling. That said, it is obvious that the less identifiable and reliable the informants are, the greater is the government’s obligation to be transparent in conveying the investigator’s potential biases. The Obama administration’s malfeasance on this point is breathtaking.

Graham and Grassley recount:

The FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier. In footnote 8 [of the first warrant application, apparently repeated in the subsequent applications] the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “identified U.S. person” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS.

The fact that Fusion GPS’s ultimate client was the Clinton campaign was never disclosed in any of the warrant applications, which ran well beyond June 2017, when the last 90-day extension was granted. Patently, so much struggle and circumlocution went into crafting this “vaguely limited” footnote that we can only conclude the decision not to disclose the Clinton connection was the subject of much deliberation.

The Clinton campaign’s sponsorship was not publicly disclosed until October 2017. Before then, it is virtually certain that, to the extent the FISA court and Congress were told of the “political origins” of the dossier, these were benignly presented as bipartisan concerns about Donald Trump. That is, the Steele dossier phase of Fusion’s anti-Trump project was conflated with the earlier phase, when — as Simpson has testified — Fusion did documentary research on Trump during the Republican primaries for a conservative media outlet. It was not disclosed that, by the time Steele was hired to do the dossier, the project was backed exclusively by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign.

Manifestly, that was a material fact. If a prosecutor withheld an arguably exculpatory fact of this degree of significance, it could get a conviction reversed. As some have observed, a public company would likely face a stock fraud prosecution for concealing a fact so patently material from its required SEC reports.

The Clinton-campaign tie should have been disclosed from the beginning. Now, consider what happened as the surveillance continued for the better part of a year.

In late October 2016, shortly after the first warrant was issued, the FBI terminated its relationship with Steele because he lied to the Bureau about his contacts with the media. But the Justice Department did not report this to the FISA court. Instead, when the first warrant expired in January 2017, the FBI and Justice Department sought its renewal by, again, relying on the credibility of the guy they’d booted for lying. In another lawyerly footnote, they told the FISA court that Steele had been terminated not because he lied but because he was guilty of “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.”

But that was not the half of it. Steele’s agreement with the FBI was that he would not communicate with the press. He made that agreement and then communicated with the press anyway — which showed he was unreliable, notwithstanding the FBI’s continued insistence to the contrary. He hadn’t just flouted the agreement by speaking to the press, though; he had clearly lied about doing so.

By mid-September 2016, at Fusion’s direction and even before the first FISA warrant was issued, Steele had spoken with a plethora of Clinton-friendly press outlets. As a result, Yahoo News published a news story by Michael Isikoff on September 23, which reported precisely the information that Steele had given to the FBI about Page: that he’d supposedly met in Moscow with two top Russian operatives and discussed the lifting of sanctions against Russia.

How could the FBI and Justice Department not have known that Steele was the source for this story? Isikoff explicitly stated that his account of Page’s activities was set forth in “intelligence reports” that were in the possession of “U.S. officials.” Plainly, the FBI was privy to intelligence reports in the government’s possession — the purported “intelligence” reports Steele had provided as well as any others. Had there been another intel report from a different source who happened to provide the same exact information Steele had provided, not only would the FBI have known about it; the Bureau would have touted it to the FISA court as critical corroboration of Steele’s anonymous sources.

To the contrary, the FISA court was told: “The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press.” I’ve emphasized “directly” to highlight how curious this assertion is. Ostensibly, the Bureau seems to have been saying that Steele was not the source — meaning that there must have been another source, yet one the Bureau had not managed to identify even though this mystery source was described in intelligence reports accessible to the Bureau.

On the other hand, what does “directly” mean? By using that qualifier, was the Bureau conceding that Steele might have provided information to the press indirectly – i.e., through an intermediary? But that would make no sense: What would be the point of citing the Isikoff article as corroboration for Steele if Steele had been Isikoff’s source, even if indirectly?

It is not good, one way or the other. Either Steele lied to the FBI about speaking to the press, or the FBI consciously avoided learning that Steele had spoken to Isikoff and then speculated to the court that Steele was probably not Isikoff’s source. Either way, Steele’s credibility was a huge issue. That put in doubt the FBI’s vouching for his reliability, which in turn made disclosure of the Clinton campaign’s sponsorship of his dossier even more imperative.

Or how about this: Steele gave a published interview to Mother Jones in late October 2016, after promising not to speak to the media. In trying to soft-peddle the palpable unreliability Steele had thus exhibited, the FBI rationalized that he was acting not out of dishonesty but in a fit of pique over Director Comey’s pre-election announcement that the FBI had reopened the Clinton emails investigation.

This, of course, is the announcement that Clinton partisans blame for their candidate’s loss. So, according to the Bureau, Steele’s pro-Clinton partisanship induced him to such outrage over Comey’s announcement that he was moved to violate his agreement with the FBI. Wouldn’t you think it might then occur to the Bureau and the Justice Department that maybe, just maybe, they ought to let the court in on that teeny detail about the Clinton campaign’s being the sponsor of Steele’s dossier?

Nope. Instead they kept mum and they kept telling the court Steele was perfectly reliable.

In fact, they kept telling the FISA court he was reliable even after Steele himself admitted to a British court that his dossier wasn’t at all reliable.

What’s that? Am I kidding? No.

Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense.
Even though there was still no meaningful corroboration of Steele’s sources after months of investigation, even though Steele had lied to them, the FBI and Justice Department represented again and again, in April and June 2017, that the FISA court could confidently bank on Steele’s reliability. By early 2017, however, Steele was being sued for libel in Britain, among other places, by people accused of misconduct in the dossier.

Truth is a defense to libel. Suffice it to say, it was not Steele’s defense.

In May 2017, as I have detailed (here), Steele was required to respond to interrogatories. He emphasized that his dossier allegations were “raw intelligence” that was “unverified” and “warranted investigation.” He further described his reports as “limited intelligence” that described mere “indications” of “possible” coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. He was not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of what he’d been told, he explained; he passed it along because it needed further investigation.

Yet, far from reporting Steele’s retreat to the FISA court, Grassley and Graham report that the FBI and Justice Department continued vouching for the reliability of his allegations.

Beyond all that, we now learn through the senators’ memo, and some follow-up reporting, that two longtime Clinton cronies, Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal, fed their own anti-Trump dossier to Steele, through a State Department official, Jonathan Winer. In the fall of 2016, Steele, while working on his Clinton-funded project, reported this Clinton-crony information to the FBI.

Still, the FBI and Justice Department elected not to tell the FISA court that the Clinton campaign was paying for Steele’s unverified, unverifiable anti-Trump research.

I spent many months assuring people that nothing like this could ever happen — that the FBI and Justice Department would not countenance the provision to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations of heinous misconduct. When Trump enthusiasts accused them of rigging the process, I countered that they probably had not even used the Steele dossier. If the Justice Department had used it in writing a FISA warrant application, I insisted that the FBI would independently verify any important facts presented to the court, make any disclosures that ought in fairness be made so the judge could evaluate the credibility of the sources, and compellingly demonstrate probable cause before alleging that an American was a foreign agent.

I was wrong.

Andrew

[spurraider21]

spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905)

“Moreover, the warrant meant the FBI could seize not only Page’s forward-going communications but any past emails and texts he may have stored — i.e., his Trump campaign communications.”
Yes. So others may get swept up. Thanks for confirming

but the warrant would have to state with particularity what type of information and communication is being sought

[Pavlov]

You can tell TSA is desperate when he shits the same wall of text in multiple threads.

[Chris]

962803177249787904

[Pavlov]

962803177249787904So four dossiers no one used against Trump when it actually would have meant something?

:tu

[Chris]

962715654871769089

[Chris]

962712365597908994

[Pavlov]

962712365597908994Any non-sundance sourcing for this?

[Chris]

Any non-sundance sourcing for this?

It's called a scoop. You're welcome.

[Pavlov]

It's called a scoop. You're welcome.The grocer has been wrong before, so corroboration is helpful. This is how things work outside your fake news bubble. You're welcome.

The funny thing is if he is the big news, the Republicans simply can't help leaking every single time.

Leaks good now.

[Chris]

The grocer has been wrong before, so corroboration is helpful. This is how things work outside your fake news bubble. You're welcome.

The funny thing is if he is the big news, the Republicans simply can't help leaking every single time.

Leaks good now.

Lots of squirming and editing. Good, good... :lol

[Pavlov]

Lots of squirming and editing. Good, good... :lolI added two sentences.

Lots of avoiding the topic from you -- that says it all. Good, good... :lol

[Chris]

963057609421987840

[Chris]

963080476712988672

[Pavlov]

lol laundered

[Blake]

963057609421987840

Lol sure.

I swear fox and friends looks like a show for the PTL network

[Chris]

Lol sure.

I swear fox and friends looks like a show for the PTL network

1.)No one knows that the PTL network is.

2.)You're not funny.

[Pavlov]

1.)No one knows that the PTL network is.You don't?

:lol


2.)You're not funny.

You're making him funnier.

[Chris]

963156231480373250

[spurraider21]

so susan rice IS going down :wow

[Chris]

so susan rice IS going down :wow

If she does you will probably have a dabom/mono retirement thread :lol

[Blake]

1.)No one knows that the PTL network is.

2.)You're not funny.

Did I seriously strike a nerve over that?

[Chris]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DV3e0oKV4AA6C9r.jpg:large

[Chris]

Grassley, Graham Uncover ‘Unusual Email’ Sent by Susan Rice to Herself on President Trump’s Inauguration Day



WASHINGTON – As part of their continued efforts to conduct oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) discovered a partially unclassified email sent by President Obama’s former National Security Advisor (NSA) Susan Rice to herself on January 20, 2017 – President Trump’s inauguration day.

Ambassador Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote:

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

Grassley and Graham were struck by the context and timing of this email, and sent a follow up letter to Ambassador Rice. The letter reads in part:

“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’”

Grassley and Graham have asked Ambassador Rice to answer a set of questions by February 22, 2018 so the committee may further assess the situation. The full text of their letter is below.

February 8, 2018

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Susan Rice
Senior Fellow, Belfer Center
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

c/o
Kathryn Ruemmler, Esq.
Latham and Watkins LLP
555 Eleventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Ambassador Rice:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the FBI and the broader Department of Justice. Part of that duty involves ensuring that law enforcement efforts are conducted without improper political influence. Accordingly, the Committee has been investigating the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele during the time his work was funded by Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee, as well as the FBI’s reliance on his unverified third-hand allegations in the Bureau’s representations to courts.

As part of that effort, the Committee sent a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between President Obama and then-FBI Director Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation of allegations of collusion between associates of Mr. Trump and the Russian government. In response, the Committee received classified and unclassified versions of an email you sent to yourself on January 20, 2017 – President Trump’s inauguration day. If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15pm, presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time.

In this email to yourself, you purport to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before, on January 5, 2017. You wrote:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.
That meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI’s investigation of its claims.[1] Your email continued:

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

The next part of your email remains classified. After that, you wrote:

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation. In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed “by the book,” substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed “by the book.”

In order for the Committee to further assess the situation, please respond to the following by February 22, 2018:

Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself? Do you have any reason to dispute the timestamp of the email?

When did you first become aware of the FBI’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia?

When did you become aware of any surveillance activities, including FISA applications, undertaken by the FBI in conducting that investigation? At the time you wrote this email to yourself, were you aware of either the October 2016 FISA application for surveillance of Carter Page or the January 2017 renewal?

Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama’s meeting with Mr. Comey about the Trump/Russia investigation? If so, who and why?

Is the account of the January 5, 2017 meeting presented in your email accurate? Did you omit any other portions of the conversation?

Other than that email, did you document the January 5, 2017 meeting in any way, such as contemporaneous notes or a formal memo? To the best of your knowledge, did anyone else at that meeting take notes or otherwise memorialize the meeting?

During the meeting, did Mr. Comey or Ms. Yates mention potential press coverage of the Steele dossier? If so, what did they say?

During the meeting, did Mr. Comey describe the status of the FBI’s relationship with Mr. Steele, or the basis for that status?

When and how did you first become aware of the allegations made by Christopher Steele?

When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Mr. Steele’s efforts?

You wrote that President Obama stressed that he was “not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.” Did President Obama ask about, initiate, or instruct anything from any other perspective relating to the FBI’s investigation?

Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’s investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia? If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was discussed?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of Chairman Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-5225 or Lee Holmes of Chairman Graham’s staff at (202) 224-5972 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,


Charles E. Grassley Lindsey O. Graham
Chairman Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Committee on the Judiciary

Enclosure: as stated.

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Committee on the Judiciary

-30-

[1] See Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper, Intel Chiefs Presented Trump With Claims of Russian Efforts to Compromise Him, CNN (Jan. 12, 2017) (the IC briefings of President Obama and then-President Elect Trump included the Steele dossier); Josh Lederman, Biden: Intel Officials Told Us Trump Allegations Might Leak, The Associated Press (Jan. 12, 2017) (Vice President Biden told reporters: “It surprised me in that it made it to the point where the agency, the FBI thought they had to pursue it.”)

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-uncover-unusual-email-sent-susan-rice-herself-president-trump-s

[spurraider21]

amazing that they just uncovered the email that was declassified in june 2017

[spurraider21]

but really, is that so eye opening? i send myself emails and texts all the time tbh, mostly as reminders.

[Chris]

In order for the Committee to further assess the situation, please respond to the following by February 22, 2018:

Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself? Do you have any reason to dispute the timestamp of the email?

When did you first become aware of the FBI’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia?

When did you become aware of any surveillance activities, including FISA applications, undertaken by the FBI in conducting that investigation? At the time you wrote this email to yourself, were you aware of either the October 2016 FISA application for surveillance of Carter Page or the January 2017 renewal?

Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama’s meeting with Mr. Comey about the Trump/Russia investigation? If so, who and why?

Is the account of the January 5, 2017 meeting presented in your email accurate? Did you omit any other portions of the conversation?

Other than that email, did you document the January 5, 2017 meeting in any way, such as contemporaneous notes or a formal memo? To the best of your knowledge, did anyone else at that meeting take notes or otherwise memorialize the meeting?

During the meeting, did Mr. Comey or Ms. Yates mention potential press coverage of the Steele dossier? If so, what did they say?

During the meeting, did Mr. Comey describe the status of the FBI’s relationship with Mr. Steele, or the basis for that status?

When and how did you first become aware of the allegations made by Christopher Steele?

When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Mr. Steele’s efforts?

You wrote that President Obama stressed that he was “not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.” Did President Obama ask about, initiate, or instruct anything from any other perspective relating to the FBI’s investigation?

Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’s investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia? If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was discussed?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact Patrick Davis of Chairman Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-5225 or Lee Holmes of Chairman Graham’s staff at (202) 224-5972 if you have any questions.


https://media0.giphy.com/media/vjwACwDxB0hZ6/giphy.gif