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

[Pavlov]

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

[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
Kortan

The 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.

[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.

[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 re ed 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...

[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 "an hetical 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/polit...ice/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/polit...ice/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

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 bag 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 "an hetical 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.

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

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 do ents. 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 do ent 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