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

[Pavlov]

Hey, Chris posted another nothingburger.

[TSA]

963165848109232128

[Pavlov]

:lol hints

[Blake]

https://media.giphy.com/media/26ufnwz3wDUli7GU0/source.gif

[Chris]

New Susan Rice Email Exposes Beginning of the ‘Deep State’ Plot Against Trump


http://truthfeednews.com/new-susan-rice-email-exposes-beginning-of-the-deep-state-plot-against-trump/

[Chris]

963205653933080576

[Chris]

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

Her email appears to back date a meeting, in an effort to protect Obama from criminal charges. Also look at the date of the email, and what else was happening on that day.

[Chris]

963213689892503552

[TSA]

Strzok and Page Discussed Classified Info in Unsecure Messages

A former FBI official, who recently worked on counterintelligence investigations, said “there is no single source reporting in the U.S. government that is unclassified.”

“Single source reporting is the government’s most prized possession that the government has and great lengths are taken to protect single source reporting – most importantly classification and secure handling procedures. For Strzok and Page to be using iMessage to communicate single source reporting is grossly negligent and exceptionally dangerous to that single source.”

“It can’t just be their issued government phones but criminal subpoenas for their personal phones is necessary,” the former FBI official stated.


“They are either hiding information or discussing classified information on an unclassified system they deem to be more secure than their classified system – not from foreign governments but from U.S. oversight,” said another former FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the current nature of their work. “The investigation has to include their personal cell phones and emails, otherwise it would be incomplete.

https://saraacarter.com/fbi-agents-texts-suggest-use-unsecured-messages-discuss-classified-information/

[TSA]

Was Christopher Steele Paid by Russian Oligarch and Putin Ally Oleg Deripaska?

New information casts the dossier he allegedly authored in a new light

A release last week of texts showed that Christopher Steele, the former British spy whose memos regarding the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia are referred to as the Steele dossier, reached out to Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, through a Russian-linked Washington, D.C., lobbyist named Adam Waldman. Among Waldman’s clients is Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a text dated Mar. 16, 2017, Waldman texted Warner, “Chris Steele asked me to call you.”

In 2009, Waldman filed papers with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registering himself as an agent for Deripaska in order to provide “legal advice on issues involving his U.S. visa as well as commercial transactions” at a retainer of $40,000 a month. In 2010, Waldman additionally registered as an agent for Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, “gathering information and providing advice and analysis as it relates to the U.S. policy towards the visa status of Oleg Deripaska,” including meetings with U.S. policymakers. Based on the information in his FARA filings, Waldman has received at least $2.36 million for his work with Deripaska.

A letter dated Feb. 9, sent by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley to a London-based lawyer may shed light on why Steele used Waldman as an intermediary. (Waldman’s office did not reply to an email from Tablet requesting comment.)

February 9, 2018
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Paul E. Hauser, Esq.
Partner
Bryan Cave
88 Wood Street
London, EC2V 7AJ UK

Dear Mr. Hauser:

The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary has been investigating issues relating to the Russian government’s disinformation efforts targeting the 2016 Presidential election, as well as the nature of the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele. Part of that inquiry involves examining the connections between those involved and Russian interests.

In light of this, by February 23, 2018 please answer the following questions:

1. Public reports and court documents indicate that you are an attorney for Mr. Oleg Deripaska. Do you serve, or have you served, as legal counsel for Mr. Deripaska or any business associated with him?

2. Have you ever hired or otherwise worked with Mr. Christopher Steele, Orbis Business Intelligence Limited, Orbis Business International Limited, Walsingham Training Limited, or Walsingham Partners Limited? If so, when, and what was the nature of the arrangement?

3. Is it the case that Mr. Steele, through you, works or has worked on behalf of Mr. Deripaska or businesses associated with him? If so, when has such work occurred?

4. Are you otherwise aware of any business or financial relationships between Mr. Steele and Russian government officials, Russian oligarchs, or Russian businesses?

If Steele was employed by Deripaska or by his lawyer to do work on his behalf, it is likely to cast the dossier he allegedly authored in a new light.

In January, Deripaska filed a lawsuit against Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign convention manager—the latest chapter in an ongoing 9-year business dispute between the two men, in which Deripaska has alleged that Manafort failed to properly account for more than $20 million in investments and fees from a 2008 business deal between the two men. In 2014, Deripaska took legal action against Manafort in the Cayman Islands.

Manafort’s work on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was underscored in the Steele dossier, which alleged that Manafort had partnered in a money-laundering operation with Yanukovych. In October, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted Manafort on several counts, including a conspiracy to launder millions of dollars in payment from political parties and officials in Ukraine.

In the Warner-Waldman texts, the lobbyist refers to his “Russian client” and discusses the possibility of the oligarch offering his testimony before the Senate committee. “My other guy,” Waldman says, apparently referring to Deripaska, is “very mistrustful of the USG [United States government]. He’s been essentially shut out of the country and dragged through the mud.”

According to the New York Times, Deripaska has long had difficulty entering the United States. “The State Department has refused to issue him a business visa because of concerns over allegations that he was connected to organized crime, according to a former United States government official, which Mr. Deripaska has denied.”

Putin himself complained about the State Department’s refusal to issue Deripaska a visa. “They give us nothing, explain to us nothing, and forbid him from entry,” the Russian president said in 2008. In 2011, after Waldman began working for Deripaska and Lavrov, the Russian government issued Deripaska a diplomatic passport, and the oligarch was allowed to visit the United States.

If Steele worked for a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin, it is likely to change prevailing views of the Russia investigations of the past year and a half. The three congressional inquiries (Senate Judiciary, Senate Intelligence, and House Intelligence), as well as special counselor Robert Mueller’s probe, are based largely on allegations made in the dossier. Was Steele paid by Deripaska at the same time he was paid by the Washington, D.C. communications firm Fusion GPS for his work on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee? Did his work on behalf of Deripaska influence his investigations into the Trump team’s possible ties to Russia? Was Deripaska one of Steele’s Kremlin-insider sources—and what does that tell us about the contents and purpose of the Steele dossier?

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255290/christopher-steele-putin-oleg-deripaska

[spurraider21]

Her email appears to back date a meeting, in an effort to protect Obama from criminal charges. Also look at the date of the email, and what else was happening on that day.
she is protecting obama by sending herself an email that was classified

[Pavlov]

lol tabletmag

[TSA]

lol tabletmag

lol _______

This is what you’ve been reduced to.

You’re a sad shell of your previously sad self, sad.

[Pavlov]

lol _______

This is what you’ve been reduced to.

You’re a sad shell of your previously sad self, sad.It's another bunch of mights and maybes.

You're just throwing shit at the wall again.

Sad.

If you up your game it will be the first time.

[Chris]

963486486975926272

[Chris]

Why the fuck are Susan Rice unmaskings at the Obama Library and not available to the public for 5 years? #Obamagate #Stonewalling

[koriwhat]

Why the fuck are Susan Rice unmaskings at the Obama Library and not available to the public for 5 years? #Obamagate #Stonewalling

because our gov is bs

[Pavlov]

Why the fuck are Susan Rice unmaskings at the Obama Library and not available to the public for 5 years? #Obamagate #StonewallingI believe it is pretty standard practice tbh. It's not like DOJ couldn't subpoena them if they thought there was more than a nothingburger there.

[Chris]

963541889101320198

https://media.giphy.com/media/VJ2B0I6t2HEUE/giphy.gif

[TSA]

Russiagate or Intelgate?

The publication of the Republican House Committee memo and reports of other documents increasingly suggest not only a “Russiagate” without Russia but also something darker: The “collusion” may not have been in the White House or the Kremlin.

By Stephen F. Cohen February 7, 2018
The John Batchelor Show, January 6

Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com.)

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-or-intelgate/

[Chris]

Comey could be in major trouble for intentionally misleading Congress.


Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

[TSA]

963580919960436737

[TSA]

Comey could be in major trouble for intentionally misleading Congress.

They’ll all start turning on each other soon if they already haven’t

[TSA]

Very interesting thread on Carter Page background

961474681281814528

[hater]

Funny how Us military now using the cyberattacks bullshit s to get unlimited amounts of money from retarded demofrats and repugs

All they have to say is cyber attack, china and russia and these retarded idiots sign the checks

No proof or smblance of proof needed

Hell this beats even WMDs or terrorism hoaxes. No false flags needed :lol

[spurraider21]

Very interesting thread on Carter Page background

961474681281814528
we already know he was Male-1 and spoke to the FBI

but go ahead and continue devolving into cosmored

[Chris]

Funny how Us military now using the cyberattacks bullshit s to get unlimited amounts of money from retarded demofrats and repugs

All they have to say is cyber attack, china and russia and these retarded idiots sign the checks

No proof or smblance of proof needed

Hell this beats even WMDs or terrorism hoaxes. No false flags needed :lol

That's why Hillary was war mongering against Russia during the debates, especially emphasizing cyber attacks. She was ready to start WW3 with Deep State in her pocket.

[TSA]

we already know he was Male-1 and spoke to the FBI

but go ahead and continue devolving into cosmored

You don’t find his education interesting? Or did you not read the thread?

[Pavlov]

Very interesting thread on Carter Page background

961474681281814528Missy_America?

What happened to you?

Oh, nevermind. We know.

[TSA]

Missy_America?

What happened to you?

Oh, nevermind. We know.


if your determination of whether it is real is solely based on "who said it" rather than "what evidence are they relying on" then you have a warped view of reality

[TSA]

963541889101320198

https://media.giphy.com/media/VJ2B0I6t2HEUE/giphy.gif

Interesting theory on the Susan Rice email

963575629655425024

963576446319869952

963576812067471360

963577088551759872

963577514172989440

963578293743005696

963578571947089921

963579030820696064

963579404075941889

963579586746359808

963579842162655232

963580094810701824

963580361354633216

963580723964690432

963581526582571008

963594892541796353

[Blake]

Key word there being "solely"

[Blake]

Lol "interesting theory"

Yeah I'm gonna dismiss without reading the wall

[Pavlov]

Man, all these people have egos as big as TSA's.

[spurraider21]

quoting me
keyword: solely

credibility is kinda important tbh, as are claims of personal knowledge

[Blake]

Man, all these people have egos as big as TSA's.

And wild imaginations

[Pavlov]

keyword: solely

credibility is kinda important tbh, as are claims of personal knowledgeFrankly, I automatically gave the angry flamethrower novelist more credibility since he used an actual name.

I feel the same way about the "Counterchekist" and "Tea Pain."

[spurraider21]

so now susan rice is a brave patriot hero intentionally exposing the obama administration and the corrupt DOJ/FBI :lmao

[Pavlov]

so now susan rice is a brave patriot hero intentionally exposing the obama administration and the corrupt DOJ/FBI :lmao"I just said it was an interesting theory. Want to make a bet on it?"

[spurraider21]

between susan rice going from "the only person who's going to get indicted" to being a brave patriot hero and carter page going from "some guy who volunteered" to being an undercover FBI agent, there seems to be a lot of gymnastics going on

[Pavlov]

between susan rice going from "the only person who's going to get indicted" to being a brave patriot hero and carter page going from "some guy who volunteered" to being an undercover FBI agent, there seems to be a lot of gymnastics going on
https://media.giphy.com/media/Fit3tbdxMSfsc/giphy.gif

[TSA]

963864789016485888

[spurraider21]

so now susan rice is a brave patriot hero intentionally exposing the obama administration and the corrupt DOJ/FBI :lmao

[Pavlov]

TSA, if you think members of the incoming administration are unduly influenced by foreign governments and the FBI is actively investigating that, would you tell the new administration everything you are doing?

Yes or no.

[Chris]

Interesting theory on the Susan Rice email

Outstanding. :tu good stuff about CIA Brennan here and they cover the Susan Rice emails


963757196440981506

[Pavlov]

Outstanding. :tu good stuff about CIA Brennan here


963757196440981506Does Gorka say "Obamagate"?

[Chris]

963886060207067136

[Chris]

963892191138639875
963796762422112256

[Chris]

Ohr shit!

963981724387610630

[Pavlov]

It seems.

SEEMS!

[Chris]

It seems.

SEEMS!

Ohr shit!

[Blake]

Ohr it's another nothingburger

[Chris]

Following the Clintons’ Final Con



For years I have been saying that the Clintons lie when they do not have to, and they tell a gigantic whopper when a little white lie would be perfectly adequate. This time-honored observation explains many of their past run-ins with the law.

Now in the lurid aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s surprising defeat to Donald Trump we see a variation of my observation playing itself out. Eventually, it will probably land some of Hillary’s associates in jail; possibly it will snag even her. In 2016, despite being well ahead in the polls, the Clintons committed various misdemeanors when they did not have to, and they and their associates committed obvious felonies when simple misdemeanors would have been perfectly adequate.

Let us begin by following the money. At least $1.02 million came from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton Campaign in 2015 to the legal firm of Perkins Coie, an obvious pass-through. Then it went from Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS, another obvious pass-through. Finally it reached its destination, Christopher Steele, an ex-British intelligence sleuth who was contemptuous of Trump, had close ties with the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, and boasted of his worldwide connections with, among others, Russians. He reportedly took $168,000 as payment for his services. That the DNC and Hillary’s campaign were firmly under Clinton control has been widely reported, most recently by Donna Brazile in her angry book about the campaign, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.

Now let us follow some of the characters in this emerging scheme. To begin with, there is Steele feverishly flogging his famous “dossier.” It contains “salacious” material about Trump supposedly paying Moscow prostitutes to evacuate on a bed that President Barack Obama once slept in. The report is dubious because Trump is a well-known “germophobe” and because he was born fully equipped to befoul a bed on his own. But there is more. The dossier also contains information about Trump conducting business in Russia, presumably while he was fully dressed.

Steele took this information to the FBI, which then took it to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to get permission to spy on Carter Page, a low level advisor to Trump on foreign policy matters. Actually, by the time the FISA warrant was issued on Page he no longer worked for the Trump campaign, not that that matters. Steele also went around peddling his dossier to members of the media. It would seem to me that in doing so Steele broke the law, he having promised the FBI not to talk to the media. What is more, the FBI broke the law by not informing the FISA court of the provenance of the material that it gave the FISA court and the material’s funding sources. Ultimately, Washington lawyers are going to be in high demand.

By the way, it appears that at least some of Steele’s information could have come from Russians, for instance the salacious stuff. So who has been colluding with the Russians? Agents of Trump or agents of Hillary Clinton? And it is at this point that I shall introduce another set of characters that could have come from no other source than Hillary, Sidney Blumenthal and a man that The American Spectator profiled last week, Cody Shearer. He has not been heard of for some twenty years.

Shearer, the New York Times told us Saturday, “has been criss-crossing Eastern Europe for more than six months to secure the purported kompromat from a different Russian….” Supposedly Shearer was dealing with different Russians than Steele’s contacts. Incidentally, Shearer is only identified by the Times as “an American political operative with ties to the Democratic party.” The Spectator identified him more completely as a long-time “hatchet man” for the Clintons. We supplied evidence. Shearer gave the fruits of his labors to Blumenthal who handed them over to an employee of the State Department, Jonathan M. Winer, whom he had known for thirty years. These fellows go way back. Winer insists that he did not share them with anyone at State, but he did share them with Steele who noted their similarities with Steele’s dossier. Steele then gave Shearer’s material to the FBI who presumably showed it to the FISA court.

While the Clinton campaign took considerable care to cover their tracks with their money trail and with comingling obvious Clintonistas like Blumenthal and Shearer with less-well-known characters such as Steele, their efforts were not sufficient, as we can now see. Actually they rarely are. If the Clintons were expert crooks they would not have been caught so many times over the years. When caught they always take refuge with their political friends and with the press. Perhaps this time they did not think they would have to, for they were so far ahead in the polls. It is bracing to think that if the Clinton campaign had won the presidency we would know nothing of their perfidy.

https://spectator.org/following-the-clintons-final-con/

[koriwhat]

ohr, the american born chinese mole.

[TSA]

FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer Responds to Chairman Nunes and Chairman Goodlatte Request for FISC Documents…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/15/fisa-court-presiding-judge-rosemary-collyer-responds-to-chairman-nunes-and-chairman-goodlatte-request-for-fisc-documents/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Pavlov]

Interesting theory on the Susan Rice email

963575629655425024

963576446319869952

963576812067471360

963577088551759872

963577514172989440

963578293743005696

963578571947089921

963579030820696064

963579404075941889

963579586746359808

963579842162655232

963580094810701824

963580361354633216

963580723964690432

963581526582571008

963594892541796353
Susan Rice, the former national security adviser, said through her attorney Friday that she documented a controversial January 2017 meeting she had with senior Obama administration officials because they were "justifiably concerned" about ties between Russia and members of the incoming Trump administration.

Rice's attorney said she memorialized the meeting upon the advice of the White House counsel's office, and that she was not aware of the existence of the FBI's Russia investigation at the time.

That Rice acted to document the meeting after being advised to do so by the White House counsel's office is a key indication of how concerned the Obama administration was about the potential national-security risks of sharing classified intelligence with the Trump transition team.

http://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-lawyer-responds-to-grassley-graham-on-2017-russia-meeting-2018-2

Then there's this from the same article:


Ruemmler noted in her letter, citing Business Insider's previous reporting, that Grassley obtained Rice's memo in June 2017 — nearly eight months before they sent her a letter raising questions about the email. Given their concerns, it is unclear why Grassley and Graham waited eight months before addressing the matter with Rice. Their representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment earlier this month.

:lol

[TSA]

3 questions inspector general must answer regarding investigation of FBI leadership

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is a nonpartisan oversight branch charged with detecting and deterring misconduct within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The FBI and its director answer to the DOJ and its head, the attorney general.

It is no secret that the OIG is investigating allegations of malfeasance within the upper echelons of FBI leadership during the James Comey era, from September 2013 until his firing last May. Its report could ruin careers and reputations at the FBI, damage the bureau’s morale and image, or even lead to the prosecution of some FBI officials.

ADVERTISEMENT
The expected report is a hotly debated topic between two intransigent camps, pitting adherents of the Comey cult-of-personality against those who view his tenure as fraught with somewhat well-intentioned but inherently politicized missteps.



Those detractors, with whom I claim association, view Comey’s oversight as a period when the bureau’s organizational values tacked out of alignment. We lament the missed opportunity for Comey, the custodian of those values. to exhibit courage and confront a bully of a president who, sensing weakness, exploits it.

Leaking FBI documents to the press — through a surrogate, no less — doesn’t show leadership or courage; it’s an abdication of responsibility. And it leads us to a point where the OIG report should provide clarity on three key questions:

1. Were investigative documents altered by senior FBI leadership?

The FD-302 is an FBI testimonial document (I drafted thousands of them during a quarter-century career with the bureau) designed to capture facts that report or summarize interviews with subjects of, or witnesses to, events in an investigation.

Investigative journalist Sara Carter has reported that FBI sources maintain the FBI’s deputy director under Comey, Andrew G. McCabe, may have asked FBI agents to alter or change their findings in their 302s; Carter alleges that OIG Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into this.

During my tenure in the FBI, no supervisor or executive manager ever asked me to materially change anything in my 302s; as an FBI boss for almost 15 years, I never requested any investigators to alter the substance of their findings in a 302.

If Horowitz can prove that senior FBI leadership ordered investigators to interfere with written evidence on an FD-302, that is the very definition of obstruction of justice. FD-302s aren’t “opinion pieces.” This could be a central part of the OIG’s report and, if the allegations are proven, it would not bode well for McCabe and others.

2. Did Deputy Director McCabe purposely “slow-walk” the discovery of pertinent emails discovered on former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop and “stand down” relevant FBI investigations to protect Hillary Clinton?

We now know that the FBI knew about 3,000 additional, potentially classified emails discovered on a laptop that Clinton aide Huma Abedin shared with her spouse, the disgraced Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), about a month before Comey’s letter announcing the same to Congress.

As the Wall Street Journal first reported, weeks transpired after that discovery by agents of the FBI’s New York office and by New York Police Department detectives investigating potential child-endangerment charges against Weiner.

While Comey ultimately drafted the letter to Congress that reopened the Clinton investigation — and, some believe, diminished Clinton’s chances in the 2016 presidential election — it is alleged that McCabe resisted notifying Congress of the discovered emails.

Sources confirm it was only after NYPD threats of “going public” with the email discovery that FBI headquarters reluctantly decided to notify Congress — something Comey previously assured Congress he would do as soon as any new evidence was discovered.

Agents with knowledge of the email investigation, and a tangential case involving alleged “pay to play” scheming between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Global Initiative, advise me that McCabe wanted to disassemble the Little Rock, Ark., FBI office’s investigation into corruption within the Clinton Foundation. But agents loudly and defiantly balked, and the case remained open.

McCabe, of course, has come under fire for his wife’s acceptance of funds for her unsuccessful 2015 Virginia senate campaign from a political action committee tied to then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.), a longtime Clinton ally and associate.

The most difficult part of any investigation can be proving motive, intent. If the OIG draws a connection between McCabe’s political relationships and the decisions he made, therein would lie the elusive “smoking gun” that FBI senior leadership purposely distorted their fealty to the Constitution and the bureau’s mission.

Embarrassing text messages between FBI deputy assistant director Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page already indicate an “insurance policy”against a Trump presidency had been discussed in “Andy’s office,” apparently referring to McCabe. This undoubtedly will be at the heart of the OIG’s focus.

Was there direct, improper coordination — collusion — between the Obama White House, the attorney general and the FBI director?

When James Comey appeared before television cameras on July 5, 2016, to announce that the FBI would not seek charges over Hillary Clinton’s improper usage of a private email server, he made a critical aside. He steadfastly maintained that the White House and DOJ knew nothing of his decision and would learn of it as everyone else would, at the conclusion of his remarks.

Comey had been thrust into an untenable position. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s inexplicable 30-minute private meeting with former president Bill Clinton aboard a government jet at the Phoenix airport on June 27, 2016, was conducted out of earshot of her staff. Lynch’s insistence that this dubious interaction was a conversation about “golf and grandkids” has been well chronicled.

Yet, Comey steadfastly maintained that his taking this unprecedented maneuver to circumvent DOJ and speak directly to Americans about the Clinton case was based on his foresworn decision to consult neither DOJ nor the White House, to avoid the appearance of political influence.

Recently released text messages between Strzok and Page indicate Lynch knew of Comey’s decision well in advance. President Obama placed his finger on the scales during a Fox News interview on April 10, 2016; the president, who made a habit of weighing in on cases that had not been fully adjudicated, flatly stated he “continued to believe [Secretary Clinton] has not jeopardized America’s national security.” Case closed.

Since we now also know Strzok and Page attempted to circumvent discovery of their efforts to influence the Clinton email server investigation by switching to non-governmental electronic devices, as highlighted by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Comey’s insistence beggars belief.

What else could be gleaned from recovered text messages on devices Strzok and Page switched to, to avoid scrutiny? And if Comey lied about what Lynch and Obama knew before his press conference, what else was he dishonest about?

We all must believe in the rule of law and in due process. In our system of justice, there is a presumption of innocence, and those mentioned above deserve that, too.

Yet, to pretend that the facts outlined above don’t hint of a troubling pattern, is just so much whistling past the graveyard. The OIG’s report must provide the answers.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/375557-3-questions-inspector-general-must-answer-regarding-investigation-of-fbi

[Pavlov]

Oh, look -- stuff about Clinton.

[TSA]

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-26%20CEG%20to%20Waldman%20(Mr.%20Steele,%20Mr.%20D eripaska,%20and%20Mr.%20Jones).pdf

Charles

[Pavlov]

:lol innuendo letters

TSA, why did Grassley sit on the Rice email for months?

[TSA]

House Republicans are expanding their investigation of the Trump dossier, seeking answers from Obama administration officials including a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden whose husband works for the firm behind the controversial document, Fox News has learned.

A source familiar with the matter confirmed to Fox News that Shailagh Murray, who was Biden's former deputy chief of staff and communications director before serving as a senior adviser to President Obama, will be sent a questionnaire Friday.”

The questionnaire, from Republican Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will ask when Murray became aware that the dossier - commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

According to Murray's online profile with the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, she joined the Obama administration in 2011 after working as a foreign correspondent, and national political reporter for The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

Murray is married to Neil King Jr., who, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, left The Wall Street Journal to work for Fusion GPS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/09/house-republicans-expand-dossier-probe-seek-info-from-obama-officials.html

:lol nothing to see here

[TSA]

BFrB50Cy-co

qBpMwRSacUk

8qOFwf3QxZk

[Pavlov]

Do they have spooky music like the 9/11 videos, TSAdan?

[Spurminator]

House Republicans are expanding their investigation of the Trump dossier, seeking answers from Obama administration officials including a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden whose husband works for the firm behind the controversial document, Fox News has learned.

A source familiar with the matter confirmed to Fox News that Shailagh Murray, who was Biden's former deputy chief of staff and communications director before serving as a senior adviser to President Obama, will be sent a questionnaire Friday.”

The questionnaire, from Republican Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, will ask when Murray became aware that the dossier - commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

According to Murray's online profile with the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, she joined the Obama administration in 2011 after working as a foreign correspondent, and national political reporter for The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

Murray is married to Neil King Jr., who, according to the Columbia Journalism Review, left The Wall Street Journal to work for Fusion GPS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/09/house-republicans-expand-dossier-probe-seek-info-from-obama-officials.html

:lol nothing to see here

All I see is someone told Fox News that Republicans intend to investigate more Clinton/Obama stuff and you getting your hopes up as usual.

[TSA]

Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Tillis Seek Special Counsel to Work with Inspector General on Handling of Russia Investigation

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

As you know, the Department of Justice Inspector General currently is reviewing the Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.[1] Recently, the Attorney General requested that he also review questions about the Department’s and the FBI’s actions in seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.[2] On February 28, based on reviews of related documents and facts gathered thus far in the Committee’s oversight work, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham also requested that the Inspector General broadly review more than 30 classified and unclassified questions related to the FBI and the Department’s handling of the so-called Trump/Russia investigation and related matters prior to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.[3] For reference, we have attached the unclassified portion of that referral.

The January 4, 2018 referral of Christopher Steele requested that the Justice Department reconcile the statements he made in British libel litigation against him with contrary statements he reportedly made to the FBI, as described in the FISA application. The referral took no position as to which were true, but asked the Justice Department whether Mr. Steele misrepresented the facts to the FBI and whether the FBI inaccurately reported the facts to the court. Based on the release of the memorandum drafted by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the FBI has now provided a further un-redacted version of that referral memorandum, also attached here.[4] The new version provides the public for the first time the actual quote from the FISA application that we flagged for the Justice Department as inconsistent with claims made in the British libel litigation filings.

The attached request to the Inspector General asked that he investigate issues surrounding the application and renewals of the FISA warrant. It also requested that he review potential improprieties in the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the potential conflicts of interest posed by the involvement of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr in serving as the cut-out between the FBI and Mr. Steele after the FBI terminated its formal relationship with him, apparent unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the press, the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and other matters.

We have the utmost confidence in the Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust that he will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely fashion. However, by statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are not current DOJ employees. Thus, we believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited. The Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself without these enhanced measures of independence to ensure that the public can have confidence in the outcome.

To ensure that the appointment of a special counsel rests on a clear, well-defined predicate and scope, and to give the American people the fullest possible confidence in his or her independence and authority, we believe that the appointment should specifically cite, rely on, and follow the Department’s regulations governing such an appointment, including specifically 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1-600.4.[5]

If you are unwilling to take this step, please send us a detailed reply explaining why not. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,



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

John Cornyn Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator U.S. Senator

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

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-cornyn-tillis-seek-special-counsel-work-inspector-general

[Chris]

Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Tillis Seek Special Counsel to Work with Inspector General on Handling of Russia Investigation

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

As you know, the Department of Justice Inspector General currently is reviewing the Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.[1] Recently, the Attorney General requested that he also review questions about the Department’s and the FBI’s actions in seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.[2] On February 28, based on reviews of related documents and facts gathered thus far in the Committee’s oversight work, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham also requested that the Inspector General broadly review more than 30 classified and unclassified questions related to the FBI and the Department’s handling of the so-called Trump/Russia investigation and related matters prior to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.[3] For reference, we have attached the unclassified portion of that referral.

The January 4, 2018 referral of Christopher Steele requested that the Justice Department reconcile the statements he made in British libel litigation against him with contrary statements he reportedly made to the FBI, as described in the FISA application. The referral took no position as to which were true, but asked the Justice Department whether Mr. Steele misrepresented the facts to the FBI and whether the FBI inaccurately reported the facts to the court. Based on the release of the memorandum drafted by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the FBI has now provided a further un-redacted version of that referral memorandum, also attached here.[4] The new version provides the public for the first time the actual quote from the FISA application that we flagged for the Justice Department as inconsistent with claims made in the British libel litigation filings.

The attached request to the Inspector General asked that he investigate issues surrounding the application and renewals of the FISA warrant. It also requested that he review potential improprieties in the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the potential conflicts of interest posed by the involvement of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr in serving as the cut-out between the FBI and Mr. Steele after the FBI terminated its formal relationship with him, apparent unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the press, the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and other matters.

We have the utmost confidence in the Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust that he will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely fashion. However, by statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are not current DOJ employees. Thus, we believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited. The Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself without these enhanced measures of independence to ensure that the public can have confidence in the outcome.

To ensure that the appointment of a special counsel rests on a clear, well-defined predicate and scope, and to give the American people the fullest possible confidence in his or her independence and authority, we believe that the appointment should specifically cite, rely on, and follow the Department’s regulations governing such an appointment, including specifically 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1-600.4.[5]

If you are unwilling to take this step, please send us a detailed reply explaining why not. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,



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

John Cornyn Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator U.S. Senator

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

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-cornyn-tillis-seek-special-counsel-work-inspector-general

:tu

[clambake]

shookened

[Pavlov]

Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Tillis Seek Special Counsel to Work with Inspector General on Handling of Russia Investigation

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

As you know, the Department of Justice Inspector General currently is reviewing the Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.[1] Recently, the Attorney General requested that he also review questions about the Department’s and the FBI’s actions in seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.[2] On February 28, based on reviews of related documents and facts gathered thus far in the Committee’s oversight work, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham also requested that the Inspector General broadly review more than 30 classified and unclassified questions related to the FBI and the Department’s handling of the so-called Trump/Russia investigation and related matters prior to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.[3] For reference, we have attached the unclassified portion of that referral.

The January 4, 2018 referral of Christopher Steele requested that the Justice Department reconcile the statements he made in British libel litigation against him with contrary statements he reportedly made to the FBI, as described in the FISA application. The referral took no position as to which were true, but asked the Justice Department whether Mr. Steele misrepresented the facts to the FBI and whether the FBI inaccurately reported the facts to the court. Based on the release of the memorandum drafted by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the FBI has now provided a further un-redacted version of that referral memorandum, also attached here.[4] The new version provides the public for the first time the actual quote from the FISA application that we flagged for the Justice Department as inconsistent with claims made in the British libel litigation filings.

The attached request to the Inspector General asked that he investigate issues surrounding the application and renewals of the FISA warrant. It also requested that he review potential improprieties in the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the potential conflicts of interest posed by the involvement of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr in serving as the cut-out between the FBI and Mr. Steele after the FBI terminated its formal relationship with him, apparent unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the press, the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and other matters.

We have the utmost confidence in the Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust that he will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely fashion. However, by statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are not current DOJ employees. Thus, we believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited. The Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself without these enhanced measures of independence to ensure that the public can have confidence in the outcome.

To ensure that the appointment of a special counsel rests on a clear, well-defined predicate and scope, and to give the American people the fullest possible confidence in his or her independence and authority, we believe that the appointment should specifically cite, rely on, and follow the Department’s regulations governing such an appointment, including specifically 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1-600.4.[5]

If you are unwilling to take this step, please send us a detailed reply explaining why not. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,



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

John Cornyn Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator U.S. Senator

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

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-cornyn-tillis-seek-special-counsel-work-inspector-general
Oh look.

Another letter.

The trap is set?

[TSA]

Oh look.

Another letter.

The trap is set?

Letters put things on record. Maybe you’ll enjoy an interview more.

http://insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/60682?__twitter_impression=true

[Pavlov]

Letters put things on record.They do nothing.

Neither do Fox interviews.

[TSA]

They do nothing.

Neither do Fox interviews.oh look another letter that did nothing :lol

Goodlatte Subpoenas DOJ for Documents Related to FISA Abuse, Clinton Investigation, and McCabe Firing

https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1177

976944130042580992


Oh hello grand jury, pesky letters.

[Pavlov]

oh look another letter that did nothing :lol

Goodlatte Subpoenas DOJ for Documents Related to FISA Abuse, Clinton Investigation, and McCabe Firing

https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1177

976944130042580992


Oh hello grand jury, pesky letters.

:lol form letters

[TSA]

FBI boss Wray 'doubling' agents responding to subpoena on Clinton, McCabe, FISA abuses

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday announced plans to “double the number” of agents handling records for the House Judiciary Committee after it asked for documents on the Clinton email probe, potential FISA abuses and the firing of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

According to a statement released by Wray, he believes the documents requested by committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., are “likely in the thousands” but that he agrees the “current pace of production is too slow.”

In attempt to comply with the committee’s request, Wray said he was “doubling” his team.

“We have dedicated 27 FBI staff to review the records that are potentially responsive to Chairman Goodlatte’s requests,” he wrote, adding he was “doubling the number of assigned FBI staff, for a total of 54, to cover two shifts per day from 8am to midnight to expedite completion of this project.”

But, a DOJ insider told Fox News that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has voiced his concern over the “unacceptable” pace with which the FBI is working and is “done” seeing his department criticized over it.

“He’s told Wray that the pace is unacceptable and that if the FBI needs to double the number of people working on this, then that’s what they need to do, but he is done seeing the Department criticized for the FBI’s slow walking of requests from Congress like the last administration when this requests should be a top priority,” the insider said.

Last week Goodlatte sent a letter, attached to a subpoena, to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saying only a “fraction” of documents relation to the Clinton email investigation had been given to the committee and that “no documents” related to its request on potential FISA abuses had been provided.

“Given the Department’s ongoing delays in producing these documents, I am left with no choice but to issue the enclosed subpoena to compel production of these documents,” Goodlatte wrote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/27/fbi-boss-wray-doubling-agents-responding-to-subpoena-on-clinton-mccabe-fisa-abuses.html

[TSA]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2018

DOJ OIG Announces Initiation of Review (FISC)
https://oig.justice.gov/press/2018/2018-03-28b.pdf

The Unraveling

[Pavlov]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2018

DOJ OIG Announces Initiation of Review (FISC)
https://oig.justice.gov/press/2018/2018-03-28b.pdf

The UnravelingWhat is your prediction here, TSA?

[TSA]

What is your prediction here, TSA?

I predict Horowitz is going to investigate the application for the FISA warrant on Carter Page and the FBI/DOJ relationship with Christopher Steele.

[Pavlov]

I predict Horowitz is going to investigate the application for the FISA warrant on Carter Page and the FBI/DOJ relationship with Christopher Steele.And then what?

[Reck]

And then what?

Some goalpost moving here and there. Rinse/repeat

[TSA]

And then what?

If laws were broken he'll recommend actions be taken by the DOJ.

[Pavlov]

If laws were broken he'll recommend actions be taken by the DOJ.What laws do you think were broken?

[TSA]

What laws do you think were broken?

I don't have access to what Horowitz has so I'm fine with letting him and his 500 employees figure out what laws were broken. I'll be sure to keep you updated on their findings :bobo

[Pavlov]

I don't have access to what Horowitz has so I'm fine with letting him and his 500 employees figure out what laws were broken. I'll be sure to keep you updated on their findings :boboDo you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.

Yes.


Which ones?

Don't know and am willing to let Horowitz and his team sort that out :bobo

[TSA]

Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.

Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Yes.



Don't know and am willing to let Horowitz and his team sort that out :bobo:lmao

SOMEONE BROKE SOME LAW SOMEWHERE AND I AM PREDICTING SOMEONE WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR SOMETHING BUT IT'S A BIG SECRET CAN'T TELL YOU REMEMBER REMEMBER CLINTON EATS BABIES

Sad, dude. #pizzagate broke you.

[spurraider21]

how can you know that a law was broken if you don't know what law was broken? or at least a description of the criminal conduct

the only way that works is if you are entirely speculating. which you're free to do. but won't carry much weight in a discussion.

[Pavlov]

how can you know that a law was broken if you don't know what law was broken? or at least a description of the criminal conduct

the only way that works is if you are entirely speculating. which you're free to do. but won't carry much weight in a discussion.Definitely not enough to declare it an unraveling over and over.

[TSA]

:lmao

SOMEONE BROKE SOME LAW SOMEWHERE AND I AM PREDICTING SOMEONE WILL BE PROSECUTED FOR SOMETHING BUT IT'S A BIG SECRET CAN'T TELL YOU REMEMBER REMEMBER CLINTON EATS BABIES

Sad, dude. #pizzagate broke you.

Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.

[spurraider21]

ITS UNRAVELING

why do you say that?

BECAUSE I THINK SOMEBODY MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG

who and what?

NO CLUE, BUT SOMEBODY... SOMETHING

[TSA]

how can you know that a law was broken if you don't know what law was broken? or at least a description of the criminal conduct

the only way that works is if you are entirely speculating. which you're free to do. but won't carry much weight in a discussion.

I never said I knew a law was broken.

[TSA]

ITS UNRAVELING

why do you say that?

BECAUSE I THINK SOMEBODY MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG

who and what?

NO CLUE, BUT SOMEBODY... SOMETHING

Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.I don't know, tbh. I'd have to know the laws that are applicable here.

What makes you think laws were broken?

What laws do you think apply here?

[spurraider21]

I never said I knew a law was broken.

ok. but you think a law was broken. what, specifically, has led you to think that a law was broken? what has informed your thought process?


Do you think laws were broken?

Yes or no.
at this point, i have no basis to think a law was broken (or at least a significant enough one to have any sort of ramification)

[TSA]

I don't know, tbh. I'd have to know the laws that are applicable here.

What makes you think laws were broken?

What laws do you think apply here?

FBI reluctance to hand over requested documents.

[Pavlov]

FBI reluctance to hand over requested documents.To a partisan committee?

What laws do you think apply here?

[TSA]

To a partisan committee?

What laws do you think apply here?

Grassley has oversight, they are required to produce the documents.

[Pavlov]

Grassley has oversight, they are required to produce the documents.What will Grassley do that the IG won't?

You're on two different tracks here.

[TSA]

What will Grassley do that the IG won't?

You're on two different tracks here.

No one claimed Grassley was going to do anything that the IG would not do. I don't know what track you are on.

[TSA]

ok. but you think a law was broken. what, specifically, has led you to think that a law was broken? what has informed your thought process?


at this point, i have no basis to think a law was broken (or at least a significant enough one to have any sort of ramification)

The AG and members of congress that have reviewed the evidence think a law was broken and the IG has agreed to investigate. What are you basing your thoughts of no law being broken on?

[spurraider21]

The AG and members of congress that have reviewed the evidence think a law was broken and the IG has agreed to investigate. What are you basing your thoughts of no law being broken on?
the lack of impartiality of those parties is kinda a big deal though

i'm not ruling out the possibility of a law having been broken. i just haven't been made aware of any facts that would lead me to affirmatively believe that there were laws broken.

that whole burden of proof thing

[Pavlov]

No one claimed Grassley was going to do anything that the IG would not do. I don't know what track you are on.If the IG is getting all the documents, what difference does it make how fast a partisan committee gets the documents?

[Pavlov]

The AG and members of congress that have reviewed the evidence think a law was brokenWhat laws do they think were broken?

[Pavlov]

The AG and members of congress that have reviewed the evidence think a law was brokenWhat laws do they think were broken?

If the AG thinks a law was broken he doesn't have to wait to launch a criminal investigation.

[TSA]

What laws do they think were broken?

If the AG thinks a law was broken he doesn't have to wait to launch a criminal investigation.

Who said the AG was waiting?

“I have appointed a person outside of Washington — many years at the Department of Justice — to look at all of the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us and we are conducting that investigation.”

[TSA]

the lack of impartiality of those parties is kinda a big deal though

i'm not ruling out the possibility of a law having been broken. i just haven't been made aware of any facts that would lead me to affirmatively believe that there were laws broken.

that whole burden of proof thing

979045082228842496

[Pavlov]

Who said the AG was waiting?

“I have appointed a person outside of Washington — many years at the Department of Justice — to look at all of the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us and we are conducting that investigation.”You're saying someone outside of the DOJ is running an active DOJ investigation?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

You're saying someone outside of the DOJ is running an active DOJ investigation?

Yes or no.

I never said that.

[Pavlov]

I never said that.Then what are you saying?

Is it an active investigation?

Yes or no.

Is this person outside the DOJ running it?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

Then what are you saying?

Is it an active investigation?

Yes or no.

Is this person outside the DOJ running it?

Yes or no.

I simply copy and pasted Sessions quote. You are free to ask him directly if you are so curious.

https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

[TSA]

You are reading way to much into the "outside of Washington" line. Sessions clearly says we (DOJ) are conducting that investigation.

[Pavlov]

I simply copy and pasted Sessions quote. You are free to ask him directly if you are so curious.

https://www.justice.gov/contact-us


You are reading way to much into the "outside of Washington" line. Sessions clearly says we (DOJ) are conducting that investigation.You posted the quote.

You have posted the quote several times.

What do you think it means?

Is it an active investigation?

Yes or no.

Is this person outside the DOJ running it?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Sessions was talking about investigating whether to appoint another special counsel and that's all.

You read too much into it.

[spurraider21]

oh look another letter that did nothing :lol

Goodlatte Subpoenas DOJ for Documents Related to FISA Abuse, Clinton Investigation, and McCabe Firing

https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1177

976944130042580992


Oh hello grand jury, pesky letters.
Yes TSA. He’s just restating what we already saw here.

referring to the hannity interview clip

[spurraider21]

even IF we assume that this means they are confirming the existence of a grand jury... if the FBI is handing over all information related to the clinton investigation, wouldn't that tangentially include information from the anthony weiner indictment, which was via grand jury? there are a ton of question marks and not nearly enough context to make the claim that a grand jury has been summoned to bring charges

the fact that there are no concrete reports is pretty damning. we knew virtually right away when mueller empaneled a grand jury in his investigation. we knew about that months before anybody was indicted.

[TSA]

even IF we assume that this means they are confirming the existence of a grand jury... if the FBI is handing over all information related to the clinton investigation, wouldn't that tangentially include information from the anthony weiner indictment, which was via grand jury? there are a ton of question marks and not nearly enough context to make the claim that a grand jury has been summoned to bring charges

the fact that there are no concrete reports is pretty damning. we knew virtually right away when mueller empaneled a grand jury in his investigation. we knew about that months before anybody was indicted.

Mueller's team leaks like a sieve of course we knew when the grand jury was empaneled. Sessions isn't leaking anything...no reason to tip off FBI/DOJ agents so they can run to their favorite media outlet and try a set a counter narrative.

[spurraider21]

oh so that's why he goes by Stealth Jeff

[Pavlov]

Mueller's team leaks like a sieveYeah, you totally knew every charge and plea before they were made official.

lol TSA's counter narrative

[TSA]

Yeah, you totally knew every charge and plea before they were made official.

lol TSA's counter narrative

https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287?mod=e2twus

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-trump-one-year-financial-ties/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-subpoena/exclusive-grand-jury-subpoenas-issued-in-relation-to-russian-lawyer-trump-jr-meeting-sources-idUSKBN1AJ2V0

https://www.apnews.com/20cfc75c82eb4a67b94e624e97207e23

https://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Mueller-s-leaked-hit-list-may-indicate-he-s-12728012.php

[Pavlov]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287?mod=e2twus

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-trump-one-year-financial-ties/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-subpoena/exclusive-grand-jury-subpoenas-issued-in-relation-to-russian-lawyer-trump-jr-meeting-sources-idUSKBN1AJ2V0

https://www.apnews.com/20cfc75c82eb4a67b94e624e97207e23

https://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Mueller-s-leaked-hit-list-may-indicate-he-s-12728012.phpOnce it actually gets into court proceedings, you can't just say the Mueller team is leaking it.

Also, CROFL Manafort's leger.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Last August, a handwritten ledger surfaced in Ukraine with dollar amounts and dates next to the name of Paul Manafort, who was then Donald Trump’s campaign chairman.

How did Mueller leak the ledger to the AP in August 2016, TSA?

Be specific.

[TSA]

Once it actually gets into court proceedings, you can't just say the Mueller team is leaking it.

Also, CROFL Manafort's leger.



How did Mueller leak the ledger to the AP in August 2016, TSA?

Be specific.

That last one was from Weissman, before he was on Muellers team.

[Pavlov]

That last one was from Weissman, before he was on Muellers team.So it's not even possible for it to be a Mueller team leak.

lol

[TSA]

So it's not even possible for it to be a Mueller team leak.

lol

I included it just to show his team has leakers that have previously leaked. What has Sessions leaked?

[TSA]

979147838318891010

The Unraveling

[Pavlov]

I included it just to show his team has leakers that have previously leaked. What has Sessions leaked?What are you saying he's investigating currently, TSA?

[Pavlov]

979147838318891010

The Unravelingleaks good now

What are you saying will happen here, TSA?

[TSA]

You posted the quote.

You have posted the quote several times.

What do you think it means?

Is it an active investigation?

Yes or no.

Is this person outside the DOJ running it?

Yes or no.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/AG-Letter-Re-IG-and-Huber-Reviews.pdf

[Pavlov]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/AG-Letter-Re-IG-and-Huber-Reviews.pdfSo he wasn't talking about an active DOJ investigation at all and the IG investigation is the only relevant one.

:lol TSA.

[TSA]

So he wasn't talking about an active DOJ investigation at all and the IG investigation is the only relevant one.

:lol TSA.

The IG investigation is a DOJ investigation and Sessions has assigned Federal prosecutors to work in cooperation with Horowitz.

:lol Pavlov.

[Pavlov]

The IG investigation is a DOJ investigation and Sessions has assigned Federal prosecutors to work in cooperation with Horowitz.

:lol Pavlov.You think an IG investigation wouldn't normally include lawyers?

:lol TSA

[TSA]

You think an IG investigation wouldn't normally include lawyers?

:lol TSA

Of course it would include lawyers as Horowitz can't prosecute anyone.

[Pavlov]

Of course it would include lawyers as Horowitz can't prosecute anyone.For what crimes?

[TSA]

For what crimes?

Broken. Fucking. Record.

You can refer to yesterday's answer to the same question.

[Pavlov]

Broken. Fucking. Record.

You can refer to yesterday's answer to the same question.I just wanted to confirm your complete adoption of Spurtacular's argument strategy.

Congratulations.:tu

[TSA]

979564774253047809

“Four times he lied. He lied to James Comey. He lied to the [FBI’s] Office of Professional Responsibility, and he lied twice under oath to the inspector general.”

Jordan, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier on Thursday the Office of Professional Responsibility report revealed McCabe not only did not tell Comey he authorized leaks to the media, he “affirmatively denied” he did so.

[TSA]

:cry gofundme

[Pavlov]

:cry gofundme:cry Mike Flynn

[TSA]

https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress .com%2F2018%2F03%2Ftime-sessionscover2.jpg&w=300&q=85

[Pavlov]

https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress .com%2F2018%2F03%2Ftime-sessionscover2.jpg&w=300&q=85Didn't he say he recused himself from any investigation involving the 2016 campaigns?

Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

Also, could you post Grassley's letter to the Trump administration requesting documents?

It's probably crucial to your investigation, right?

[spurraider21]

Mueller and his goons begging for redactions so they won't be implicated. When the Schiff hits the fan...
:lmao redactions good now

[Spurs Homer]

Lolol

[djohn2oo8]

Horowitz bodied this chump :lmao

[TSA]

:lmao nervous laughter
:lmao nervous bumping

[djohn2oo8]

Y’all seen Grassley?

[spurraider21]

i'm sure he'll be writing an angry letter to Barr asking him to investigate horowitz tbh

[Spurs Homer]

Chuck "I rushed pedo Kavanaugh hearings and hid his crimes" Grassley?


:lol:lol