Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina spoke with Martha McCallum, Monday night, regarding the firing of Peter Strzok. He is the 16th person fired from the FBI since the FBI has come under fire for its brain-glazing incompetence under former director, James Comey.
This says everything you need to know about the situation.
With one exception: in my opinion, Peter Strzok is a sociopath.
Representative Jim Jordan also weighed in with Neil Cavuto on Monday.
But wait; doesn’t that go directly against the LDAMM narrative?
Of course it does. Which is why you’ll read it here first. From TruePundit.com:
FBI: Lisa Page Dimes Out Top FBI Officials During Classified House Testimony; Bureau Bosses Covered Up Evidence China Hacked Hillary’s Top Secret Emails
Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings, revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed ‘assets’ had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 30,000+ “missing” emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn’t do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
So let’s just see how far this goes.
Let’s see how many media outlets are interested in this news.
Are they curious? Will they bury the lead? Will they at least mention this in passing?
Hand me some popcorn with extra butter and my glass of vodka.
And it’s what I’ve been saying and writing for months.
Sara Carter said it Friday night on the Sean Hannity show. The headline from Hannity.com:
BOMBSHELL: Clinton-Financed Russia Dossier USED TO SPY on Trump Campaign
The unverified dossier alleging connections between President Trump’s campaign and the Russians was used as evidence by the FBI to gain approval from a secret court to monitor members of Trump’s team, this reporter has learned.
A large portion of the evidence presented in the salacious 35-page dossier put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, has either been proven wrong or remains unsubstantiated. However, the FBI gained approval nevertheless to surveil members of Trump’s campaign and “it’s outrageous and clearly should be thoroughly investigated,” said a senior law enforcement source, with knowledge of the process.
Was the DNC/Clinton campaign-funded dossier used to obtain warrants on Trump team from the secret court?
Multiple sources told this reporter that the dossier was used along with other evidence to obtain the warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as FISC. The sources also stressed that there will be more information in the coming week regarding systemic “FISA abuse.”
“(The dossier) certainly played a role in obtaining the warrant,” added another senior U.S. official, with knowledge of the dossier. “Congress needs to look at the FBI officials who were handling this case and see what, if anything, was verified in the dossier. I think an important question is whether the FBI paid anything to the source for the dossier.”
Representative Matt Gaetz (R, FLA) said it was “outrageous” if the FBI used the “dossier” to justify a FISA court warrant request.
Which, well, yes, apparently they did.
On Wednesday, Sean Hannity said he has also independently confirmed that the dossier was used to obtain the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant from three separate sources.
Imagine that. Not one anonymous source as is the current and common trend in American Media Maggot circles. Three.
The “dossier” is specious, already factually disproven, yet was utilized as the basis for the acquisition of surveillance warrants against those involved in the Trump presidential campaign. See: the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine.
NOW do you see why the FBI has been stonewalling? NOW do you see why the DOJ has been stonewalling?
Are you beginning to see, as Leftists are wont to say, how we “connect the dots”? Dovetailing? Starting to make sense?
The specifically applicable portion in the video below begins at 4:00 and runs until 20:00. Gird thy loins.
This is what I have said. And now let me emphasize.
This will turn out to be the greatest black mark on the history of DC politics.
This is in fact indicative of a soft coup against a president campaign, a president-elect and a sitting president.
A soft coup. In America. In your country. In my country.
Committed by the Leftists, Demorats, the FBI, the DOJ and other governmental elements hostile to Conservatives.
A coup to overthrow one man, one campaign, because they did not agree with his politics and feared his efficacy.
Oh my, will there ever be more to come.
I truly believe this is the veritable TIP of the ICEBERG. This was far more than a mere RICO, this was an intricately interwoven purposeful and end-goal-designed SOFT COUP on an AMERICAN presidential candidate and now a sitting president. This is pure out-and-out treason.
FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents
by Stephen Dinan
Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.
Ty Clevenger has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal attorneys disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.
“Shot down” by whom? Right. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Who should be investigating an issue such as this.
It appears I’m going to have to change my classic logo about the FBI. . .
From this very specific graphic . . .
To this very generic graphic. And it pains me. It pains me terribly to realize the biased and politicized depths to which the FBI has sunk.
I shake my head in sadness, I well and truly do. This is so incredibly disspiriting for me and for law enforcement everywhere. In retrospect, truly, what does your NA experience really mean?
“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.
“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Mr. Hardy wrote.
Oh. Yes. Because there isn’t more of a clangor and clamoring — by the “public” — that is sufficient justification to withhold facts and evidence.
Mrs. Clinton, was the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, former chief diplomat, former U.S. senator, and former first lady of both the U.S. and Arkansas.
Her use of a secret email account to conduct government business while leading the State Department was front-page news for much of 2015 and 2016, and was so striking that the then-FBI director broke with procedure and made both a public statement and appearances before Congress to talk about the bureau’s probe.
It was, oddly enough, under her watch in which four Americans lost their lives. That no longer “counts.” To mention that now is nothing but “bias” and “prejudice.”
In the end, the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton, concluding that while she risked national security, she was too technologically inept to know the dangers she was running, so no case could be made against her.
The FBI says it will only release records from its files if a subject consents, is dead, or is of such public interest that it overrides privacy concerns.
Protecting those elements who need to be protected by the Left for the Left, so that people continue to vote for the Left. That is the basis for the FBI’s politicized decision.
Mr. Clevenger said he thought it would have been clear why Mrs. Clinton’s case was of public interest, but he sent documentation anyway, pointing to a request by members of Congress for an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton perjured herself in testimony to Capitol Hill.
“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t.
It looks like the Obama administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times
“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he said.
Correct. This is a biased decision expected from, say, a Hillary Clinton administration.
This is another in a continuing series of revelations indicating that, clearly, the Deep State is alive and well, influencing every level and agency in DC.
You were told at some point, when learning American history, that there are three separate and distinct branches of government as created and delineated by our founding fathers in their brilliance.
I would not just submit but insist there are four branches of government, as indicated.
Legislative;
Judicial;
Executive;
Bureaucratic.
This newest branch, the likes of which we’re now realizing, is frequently every bit as powerful and occasionally more so than the other three. This is one obvious instance. Hardy is a bureaucrat. A paper shuffler. He was not elected. Therefore he gets to stymie the investigation and hold back the information.
Just one basic question: since when is whatever amount of interest shown by the public a deciding factor in the revelation of documents which are not in and of themselves classified and therefore subject to nondisclosure?
Is the FBI saying that, had their been a greater rumbling by “the public” that the agency would have looked more favorably upon Clevenger’s request? Or is the FBI saying, via Hardy, that he is solely making the determination — and he is — the information is not in the public’s interest?
Good to know. A perception of “public interest” is now a lawful criteria with which to determine the relevancy of a FOIA request. I suppose Hardy will expect future requests to have ginned-up public support behind them prior to consideration.
This is the same FBI where former director James Comey in 2016 laid out a perfect case against Hillary Clinton then decided he was going to not recommend an investigation, taking this decision out of the hands of then-AG Loretta Lynch.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system, according to a report.
The political action committee of McAuliffe, the Clinton loyalist, gave $467,500 to the state Senate campaign of the wife of Andrew McCabe, who is now deputy director of the FBI, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The report states Jill McCabe received an additional $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, which is heavily influenced by McAuliffe.
This is the same FBI where former director James Comey decided to purposely leak classified information to a third party in order to prompt a special counsel to investigate President Trump regarding Russia, et al.
House seeks clarity on FBI facial recognition database
by Matt Leonard
The FBI has expanded its access to photo databases and facial recognition technology to support its investigations. Lawmakers, however, have voiced a deep mistrust in the bureau’s ability to protect those images of millions of American citizens and properly follow regulations relating to transparency.
Kimberly Del Greco, the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, faced tough questioning from both sides of the aisle at a March 22 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“So here’s the problem,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman. “You’re required by law to put out a privacy statement and you didn’t and now we’re supposed to trust you with hundreds of millions of people’s faces.”
The FBI’s NGI-IPS allows law enforcement agencies to search a database of over 30 million photos to support criminal investigations. The bureau can also access an internal unit called Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation, which can tap other federal photo repositories and databases in 16 states that can include driver’s license photos. Through these databases, the FBI has access to more than 411 million photos of Americans, many of whom have never been convicted of a crime.
The FBI obeys all laws. And no, the FBI isn’t politicized at all.
Perish the thought.
Except that confidence in the FBI is itself perishing.
[Note: I have been away from blogging and my various radio broadcasts since last Sunday, due to the fact that I was smacked with the flu. My apologies. I will be attempting to ramp things up as the days go on.]
When I voted for Donald Trump I did so with my eyes wide open. My vote was cast primarily because he was not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I also voted for Trump because I sensed he would make more sensible nominations for SCOTUS; first to replace Antonin Scalia then to fill what I suspect will be another two to possibly three additional jurists in the next four years.
I’ll be honest. I can only hope that SCOTUS truly is stacked with moderate or conservative jurists that will keep the court on a common sense track for at least another generation, perhaps two.
As an adult I knew Trump would do things with which I’d disagree. He has done so. From the WashingtonPost.com:
FBI Director James Comey to stay on in Trump administration
by Matt Zapotosky, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller
FBI Director James B. Comey was among the senior U.S. officials who had the unpleasant task of traveling to Trump Tower last month to inform the president-elect that Russia had interfered in the election process to help him win office.
Then Comey asked his colleagues — including the CIA director — to step outside so that he could discuss something even more awkward: a dossier in wide circulation in Washington that alleged that Moscow had gathered compromising financial, political and personal material about the incoming U.S. president.
That Comey was asked after that encounter, described by U.S. officials briefed on its details, to stay on as FBI director speaks to his survival instincts and ability to inspire confidence. But the meeting may also have provided a preview of the perilous position he occupies serving in the Trump administration while his agents pursue investigations that seem to lead to the president’s associates.
That was a poor decision, Donald John Trump, and I believe you’ll regret it. Director Comey allows politics to intervene in critical decisions where politics should be the very last consideration. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Make no mistake. James Comey is a country-destroying weasel, first for not recommending the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and second for not placing Hillary Clinton under oath or recording her in any fashion when interviewed on the July 4th weekend of 2016. There is, thusly, no transcript of her interview. Though that’s general FBI policy, in this critical case, an exception should have been made.
To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But in the July 2016 hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am. First:
Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton. At one hearing he went out of his way — again, just like the previous day — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.
FBI director: Clinton’s statements were not true
by Nick Gass
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.
During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.
“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”
“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Comey admits that Clinton lied. But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).
You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough. But you should not lie to the FBI. My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours. And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded. Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary. There is no record and it is not completely official. As the Church Lady would have said, “how con-veee-nient.”
Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”
But here, ladies and gentlemen, comes the crux of the proverbial biscuit. Please read this carefully, though through Gowdy’s bit of humor:
“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.
Wait for it.
“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.”
Please read the rest of the article here, because we are going to jump to another Politico article. Politico purposely does not let you make this link. You have to be smarter than Politico and make the link as I now display to you. We continue:
Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI
by Nick Gass
Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing’s opening exchanges.
Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey said.
Weasel words. Mealy-mouthed. Word pablum. You cannot determine that Clinton lied to the public? You just made your best case that she did. If she didn’t lie to your agents under oath, and you’re unsure if she lied to the public, then why didn’t you simply say so? Instead, you went out of your way to say the opposite. Your statements are conflicting and make no sense whatsoever.
But the most insightful part has arrived. Comey outs himself:
Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.
“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “
And that was how James Comey attempted to rationalize his decision. He stated he did not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization. All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.” That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs. They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.
As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”
That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.
Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation. She stepped back and placed the festering pile of shite in the lap of Comey.
FBI Director James Comey figured out how to cover his own ass by revealing some truths about Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously making nice with those in DC power positions who could hurt him seriously. This is Comey’s false justification for his decision. And it is clearly wrong and damaging. He created his “out.”
Or did he just believe he “took one for the team”?
In my opinion: no. He dishonored his oath.
Agents were directed to identify exculpatory instead of incriminatory evidence in the Hillary Rodham Clinton illegal server email case “conducted” by the FBI.
And trust me: that grated in the craw of every good line-level FBI agent remotely connected with the investigation.
As it grates with regard to DOJ special agents and some of the attorneys who aren’t yet full Leftist sycophants.
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
Read that again: “No trial level attorney, no agent working the case agree, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”
Precisely. That decision came directly from the Oval Office via a telephone call to Loretta Lynch and then a call to Director James Comey. It all dovetails and ties up neatly. I wrote about “connecting the dots” of corruption in the Obama administration here. Please take time to read the article — it explains most everything you’ve seen and heard.
Comey can’t stand political or personal heat. From anyone. He instead wants to please everyone, somehow keep his job, and does real justice no service whatsoever. If there ever were an indecisive, cowardly and misdirected man, it is James Brien Comey.
A) Following his July decision to forego a recommendation of either an indictment or a grand jury impaneled regarding Hillary Clinton’s private server and disregard for US security and intelligence protocols (not to mention laws), FBI Director James Comey created a firestorm not just within his own agency but the American public — and it affected his private as well as public or work life. Letters of resignation from good and true FBI line level agents began to pile up on his desk, and even Comey’s wife Pat told him he must make amends.
B) Under mounting pressure, on October 28th Director Comey indicated he was re-opening the investigation into more of Hillary Clinton’s emails — an estimated 650,000 of them, stemming from the examination of a case involving Anthony Wiener, husband of Huma Abedin, close assistant and confidant of HRC. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d in unison: “bad decision, Jim, bad decision.”
C) Following his determination to re-open the Clinton email case, the OSC (Office of Special Counsel) received complaints about Director Comey regarding violations of the Hatch Act, which is a “law designed to prevent federal officeholders from abusing their power to influence an election.” This complaint was filed Saturday, October 29th with the OSC by lawyer Richard Painter.
D) Nine short days later, armed with a team of miracle workers, FBI Director James Comey reaffirmed his original July decision: yeppers, nothing to see here. No corruption, no collusion, move along. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d again in unison: “great decision, Jim, great decision.”
You cannot convince me that James Comey can take political heat. He has instead bent and broken to whatever prevailing political prairie winds were coursing through DC at any given time. He is still sitting in a dark leather chair in his corner orifice whilst the bulk of his peers have left DC — including former AGs Holder and Lynch, as well as the former president. Comey, by appearing confused and/or conciliatory and utilizing his finest set of pablum-packed weasel words, is still standing.
Comey vacillates, he is a flawed thinker, and has proven that he is untrustworthy. Those are now his best qualities.
You keep Comey, President Trump, at your own peril.
Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina spoke with Martha McCallum, Monday night, regarding the firing of Peter Strzok. He is the 16th person fired from the FBI since the FBI has come under fire for its brain-glazing incompetence under former director, James Comey.
FINALLY. IT’S OUT.
And that is such a depressing statement to make, because I used to work for the FBI.
To this very generic graphic. And it pains me. It pains me terribly to realize the biased and politicized depths to which the FBI has sunk.
I shake my head in sadness, I well and truly do. This is so incredibly disspiriting for me and for law enforcement everywhere. In retrospect, truly, what does your NA experience really mean?
When I voted for Donald Trump I did so with my eyes wide open. My vote was cast primarily because he was not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I also voted for Trump because I sensed he would make more sensible nominations for SCOTUS; first to replace Antonin Scalia then to fill what I suspect will be another two to possibly three additional jurists in the next four years.