Three Leaders Are Better Than One
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats have tried to block the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the FBI and its probe of the Trump presidential campaign. They have failed. And the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating the actions of the FBI on its own.
Democrats made a fatal mistake. In their eagerness to quash scrutiny of the FBI, they embraced a dossier of unverified claims about President Trump put together by British ex-spy Christopher Steele. It blew up in their laps—and in the FBI’s even more so—after it was used improperly to justify the wiretap of a minor Trump adviser, Carter Page. It was a partisan document, having been financed by Democrats.
The dossier was heavily relied on in the FBI’s wiretap application. Only a part of that application has been released publicly, the rest redacted. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House committee, has asked the Justice Department to unmask the redacted sections, or at least two dozen specific pages.
There are bigger questions that the full application cannot answer. Yet these are on the minds of Nunes and other Republicans on both committees. Who in the Obama administration authorized the request for the wiretap during the final months of the 2016 campaign? (It was approved on October 21.) Which officials were involved? How did they intend to use the material they might obtain? What laws might have been violated?
At a committee meeting on March 17, 2017, ranking Democrat Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), cited the dossier as if it were unquestionably true. He described Steele as “a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S intelligence.”
Steele’s tales about Page were from Russian sources who had not been vetted. In other words, the items had not been checked out, which a thorough investigation would have required. “Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago,” according to Andy McCarthy of National Review . The FBI later cut its ties with Steele for leaking information to reporters. Nonetheless, Democrats treated him as Mr. Reliable.
“The Trump campaign,” Schiff said, “is offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton, which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability, like WikiLeaks. The hacked documents would be in exchange for a Trump administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on criticizing NATO countries for not paying their fair share.”
Once it turned its focus on the FBI, the Nunes committee was a target for Democrats and the media. The Senate Intelligence Committee and other Republicans were less interested in the FBI wiretap. So until the Senate Judiciary Committee jumped in, Nunes was alone. And the Judiciary Committee’s conclusions were often ignored by the media when they were much like the House committee’s.
For instance, last winter when Nunes put out a memo that said the wiretap application had depended on the Steele dossier, he was pilloried. The Judiciary Committee agreed, but it got the cold shoulder. It was cost-free to attack Nunes. It was risky to clash with Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), both political big boys.
It takes strenuous effort for a dissenting idea—like clashing with the FBI—to get traction. With Grassley and Graham on the same side as Nunes, the task got easier—three leaders rather than one. Ideas fade without leaders. Graham has been especially valuable. He’s an engaging figure who’s taken seriously by reporters and never hides from the press.
Nor can an idea emerge in a press blackout. That came close to happening. Next to Trump, Nunes is probably the most disliked Republican in Washington by the elite media and their hangers-on. While the mainstreamers echoed each other, there were five journalists who broke with the accepted narrative.
Without the many stories they broke, the idea that the FBI might have been involved in skulduggery could have vanished. Nunes would be a pariah. And congressional committees would be back to looking for Trump-Russia collusion, duplicating Robert Mueller’s efforts. For the FBI story, there’s no special prosecutor.
The five journalists are Byron York of the Washington Examiner , Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist , Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal , Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller , and McCarthy of National Review .
McCarthy wonders what the reaction would be if a Republican administration had used a “suspect agent” and a court to spy on the candidate of the other party. “It would be covered as the greatest political scandal of the century,” he says. I couldn’t have put it better.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
79 visitors
As many on Newsvine & here have said - the Russia/collusion investigation has backfired :
"There are bigger questions that the full application cannot answer. Yet these are on the minds of Nunes and other Republicans on both committees. Who in the Obama administration authorized the request for the wiretap during the final months of the 2016 campaign? (It was approved on October 21.) Which officials were involved? How did they intend to use the material they might obtain? What laws might have been violated?"
Now democrats are trying to block the congressional investigation.
Thank you Freddy "beatle" Barnes. John McLaughlin would be proud.
That's pretty funny.
First of all, what evidence do you or the author have that the FISA warrant was for a wiretap?
Secondly, the authorizing authorities are on the fucking warrant and all Nunes has to do is ask Gowdy since at least he READ the unredacted FISA warrant and the underlying documents. Nunes couldn't be bothered and I have doubts he has the intellectual capacity to understand them anyway.
As for how they intended to use the material, since it's a FISA warrant, one would presume they intended to use it to gather Foreign Intelligence/counterintelligence.
That's the ticket, throw unfounded allegations and innuendo at the wall. It doesn't matter if anything sticks, it's the residual stench that's the goal.
I wish I could say that I am shocked by the 180 that 'conservatives' have done on there support for 'law enforcement'. Alas, I'm not. Yall got tired of your 'blue lives matter' chant awfully fast.
I got a better idea. Republicans should do exactly as Dianne Feinstein did when she released the full transcript of the panel’s interview with Glenn Simpson, release the complete FISA applications to the public. It seems that committee members can do it without consequence. So let's ALL see the FISA applications.
Yall got tired of your 'blue lives matter' chant awfully fast.
Ya, we are "against all the men & women of the FBI"/sar.........Of course the 180 progressives have done should'nt go unmentioned. No, wait, on second thought, the left still hates cops, the FBI's rank and file and everyone in the CIA except for the few they love - John Brennan, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and sometimes James Comey.
"Yall" fool nobody
You mean THIS Diane Feinstein?????
Details Surface About Chinese Spy Who Worked For Sen. Feinstein
Hey Trump could have done it long ago. WTF is stopping him.
The only one of those people that still works for the Federal government is Strzok. Try to keep up.
BTFW, my father was a cop for 21 years, I grew up with them and a lot of the cops I knew through him were liberals. Y'all always make the mistake of thinking that only conservatives serve as LEOs and in the military.
Could you post that cogently please?
Amazing, isn't it?
If he does it there will be the liberal media claiming he is obstructing/interfering with the Mueller investigation. He is wisely letting the investigation play out. That's what you do when you know your innocent.
The only one of those people that still works for the Federal government is Strzok. Try to keep up.
Those are the ones we are against and the ones you liked. I hear no denial of that.
That didn't stop him from declassifying the Nunes Memo, what makes you think that the FISA warrant is sacrosanct? BTW, since when has Trump given a shit what the 'liberal media' claims? All he need do is rinse and repeat his 'FAKE NEWS' mantra.
Wow, you must not follow Trump's tweets.
Well perhaps you should concentrate on the officials that are actually in office NOW rather than blaming the people that no longer have any authority. Y'all blame Lynch but let Sessions off the hook, you blame Comey and let Wray off the hook, you blame Brennen and let Pompeo/Haspel off the hook.
Why aren't Trump's picks purging the 'corruption' out of their Agencies? WTF is stopping them and why aren't y'all outraged by their inaction?
I am a sycophant to no one.
Nor do I need to 'like' someone to respect their opinion in their area of expertise.
I gained respect for Comey because of his actions during the Bush Administration and criticized him for his actions during the Obama Administration. Those two positions are NOT mutually exclusive.
Those who served and are now private citizens have just as much right to express their opinion as you or I. Former government officials and members of the military are given voice, thought both the written and visual media, and their comments are fair game for criticism. We all make decisions on whose opinion we respect and whose we don't. I don't shut out opposing opinions based on ideology.
IMHO, those who hold the position TODAY should be held responsible for the PRESENT quality of the Agencies that they run and the employees under their authority. The FACT is that those conducting the Mueller investigation are career FBI Agents who Wray and Sessions have retained in service. If either Wray or Sessions questioned any of their honesty, they have the responsibility to reassign them until they are cleared for service.
Additionally, Horowitz is investigating 'possible misconduct' by the FBI and one would presume, as with McCabe, if Horowitz has found ANY misconduct to date, those Agents would be reassigned or referred. One would also presume that should Horowitz take any such action, Nunes would scream it from the mountain tops.
Unlike you, I'm exhausted by Trump's tweets
Well perhaps you should concentrate on the officials that are actually in office NOW rather than blaming the people that no longer have any authority.
We are. You failed to mention one by the name of Rod Rosenstein
Nor do I need to 'like' someone to respect their opinion in their area of expertise.
Your'e so fair minded. We've all noticed
I gained respect for Comey because of his actions during the Bush Administration and criticized him for his actions during the Obama Administration. Those two positions are NOT mutually exclusive.
I think most have mixed feelings towards Comey. Do you know why Obama chose him as FBI Director?
Those who served and are now private citizens have just as much right to express their opinion as you or I.
My objection to them is not based on their expressing opinions or making the unusual public pronouncements. It's a bit more serious than that.
IMHO, those who hold the position TODAY should be held responsible for the PRESENT quality of the Agencies that they run and the employees under their authority.
I totally agree. Nor should any of them put the reputation of the agency above getting to the truth. That is the way to restore the public's trust
Additionally, Horowitz is investigating 'possible misconduct' by the FBI and one would presume, as with McCabe, if Horowitz has found ANY misconduct to date, those Agents would be reassigned or referred. One would also presume that should Horowitz take any such action, Nunes would scream it from the mountain tops.
That is the investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation. It's ongoing and as they say with the Mueller investigation - we will have to wait and see!
Unlike you, I'm disgusted and embarrassed for my country because of them
Are you hanging your hat on Meadows' ridiculous Impeachment threat? Seriously, go look at his legislative record, he can't even get his own 'Freedom Caucus to cosponsor his crap. That 'Resolution' is a dead horse.
I note a hint of sarcasm in that comment
Perhaps because he was eminently qualified and a GOP compromise. He was confirmed 93-1.
Come on Vic, it's just us, you can tell me...
As long as Trump tweets is loathing for them ad nauseam, his sycophants will NEVER trust them. Right now, Trump is banking on that distrust.
Yet as I said, if Horowitz had found anything, he would act on it immediately, just as he did with McCabe. Not a peep out of him so far.
BTW, conservatives here insisted that they would accept Horowitz's report about the Clinton emails and reneged on that promise. Will y'all do the same for this coming report?
Let the cards fall where they will, right Dulay? All we want is the truth, right? If Mueller finds Trump colluded with the Russians, you would want Trump impeached and suffer the consequences for doing so, right? You just want the truth, right?
Trump may have a big mouth, but you wouldn't say that is grounds for impeachment, would you? But something like collusion with the Russians or some other corrupt activity to affect the 2016 election would be reason to impeach him, right? We want the truth, what happened during the 2016 election, before and after, right?
Judging from the writhing here after the Horowitz IG report I would say that unless there are firing squads, y'all won't accept a word of what his next report states.
The whataboutism in the every one of the seeds about his last report made it clear that y'all have a 'truth' set in your minds and anything that doesn't support that 'truth' is a product of a 'deep state' conspiracy.
Absolutely not! For those who don't know, that was a political act of frustration. There won't even be a vote on that. All it did was to embarrass the defiant deputy AG. A clear example of congressional impotence, when they can't get documents and they can't get witnesses to answer questions.
Perhaps because he was eminently qualified and a GOP compromise.
Nope. I doubt many would know.
Come on Vic, it's just us, you can tell me..
I'll let the IG do that.
Yet as I said, if Horowitz had found anything, he would act on it immediately, just as he did with McCabe. Not a peep out of him so far.
And that's exactly what many have said about the Mueller investigation
BTW, conservatives here insisted that they would accept Horowitz's report about the Clinton emails and reneged on that promise. Will y'all do the same for this coming report?
I did with his conclusions on the Clinton investigation and I will accept them when he issues his report on the Russia investigation.
I seriously doubt that. IMHO, it only embarrasses those who heralded it.
Again, they want unredacted documents and Trump can easily provide them.
Secondly, they got plenty of answers to their questions, they just don't like them.
So you don't think that Comey was eminently qualified? Why not?
As for the compromise, at the time of his appointment, editorials on both sides of the fence were hesitant but approving.
So you've got nothing and will wait until you can make 20/20 'objections'. Got ya.
Yes, many are too uninformed to understand that an IG can make 'referrals' prior to the completion of an investigation while prosecutors need to finalize their investigation BEFORE they act.
I'd have to review your comments [which I have no intention of doing] to put shade on that comment. Suffice it to say that you may be the only one that did.
I wonder how the IG can complete an investigation into an investigation that isn't completed yet.
Well, Dulay you replied to me, but you didn't address a single thing I ask you.
Right
No
Right
Happy?
And again, Trump feels he is innocent of all charges via the Mueller investigation. He is not going to interfere with the Justice Department while that is going on. You would be among the first to say he is obstructing.
They couldn't get the simplest (yet most important) questions answered. FBI lawyers were there for Strzok ad the democrats acted as lawyers for Strzok and everybody else. If the DOJ can stonewall until the November elections, and the democats win the House, they are home free. The House oversight will end.
So you don't think that Comey was eminently qualified? Why not?
That is not what I said. Let me repeat the obvious: " Do you know why Obama chose him as FBI Director?"
He was as qualified as were every Supreme Court Justice ever nominated. In this day and age people aren't simply chosen via qualifications alone. So, you really don't know why Obama chose Comey? It's ok to say you don't know.
So you've got nothing and will wait until you can make 20/20 'objections'. Got ya.
I've got the results to one investigation. Two more to go:
" The Justice Department inspector general on Thursday castigated former FBI director James B. Comey for his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation and found that other senior bureau officials showed a “willingness to take official action” to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
" In particular, the report singled out lead agent Peter Strzok as showing anti-Trump bias that could have affected his thinking on the case during the immediate run-up to the 2016 election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-receiving-briefing-ahead-of-public-release-of-report-expected-to-criticize-fbi/2018/06/14/c08c6a5a-6fdf-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html?utm_term=.85c5132c04de
Yes, many are too uninformed to understand that an IG can make 'referrals' prior to the completion of an investigation while prosecutors need to finalize their investigation BEFORE they act.
In the recently completed IG investigation a criminal referral was made at it's conclusion. Did you forget? Or does that also belong to the "uninformed"
I wonder how the IG can complete an investigation into an investigation that isn't completed yet.
He is looking into the origins of the FBI counter-intelligence investigation that preceded the Mueller probe.
Trump has 'interfered' with the Justice Department from the minute he met with Comey and asked him to 'go easy' on Flynn.
They got EVERY question answered when it came to Strzok with the IG report. They just don't like the answers.
If the DOJ or the FBI are stonewalling, that is on Sessions and Wray right?
I assure you, when the Democrats take the House, the Oversight committees will be working overtime.
So what does "Nope" mean in your language?
I won't ask you more questions on this issue since you obviously have no intention of giving a answer. Game over.
The only 'criminal referral' I know of is McCabe's and that was done months BEFORE the IG report was released.
Mueller was appointed in May 2017, the FISA warrant on Page lasted until about Sept. 2017. In short, the last half of the surveillance of Page didn't 'precede' the Mueller investigation. In FACT, Rosenstein didn't sign off on the last extension of the Page warrant until June, 2017. Between April 2017 and June 2017, 10 pages of 'intelligence' were added to the FISA warrant.
The key word is asked. He didn't order. I would have done the same. A contradiction between the counter-intell investigation and the Mueller investigation is that the FBI found Flynn. For some reason the Mueller team has him confessing to perjury.
They got EVERY question answered when it came to Strzok with the IG report.
Lol. That's really laughable. No knowledge of the hearings?
If the DOJ or the FBI are stonewalling, that is on Sessions and Wray right?
You don't know that either? Sessions has recused himself from all Trump campaign investigations. That is on Rosenstein (you know, the guy who keeps telling congress we are working on it) and Wray the guy who worries so much about the FBI's reputation that he say's "we are going to make the rules crystal clear on leaking" (as if they weren't crystal clear before). And the information they have given has been needlessly full of redactions.
I assure you, when the Democrats take the House, the Oversight committees will be working overtime.
They have a 50/50 chance. No oversight. Impeachment proceedings will then be imminent
So what does "Nope" mean in your language?
I didn't say anything about qualifications. That's twice. I really hate repeating the obvious over and over.
I won't ask you more questions on this issue since you obviously have no intention of giving a answer. Game over.
Yup, It's Checkmate!
The only 'criminal referral' I know of is McCabe's and that was done months BEFORE the IG report was released.
Before and AFTER. Here, from the report:
"Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has issued a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. related to fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , a lawyer for McCabe confirmed on Thursday .
Horowitz last week issued a scathing report of McCabe's conduct at the FBI, alleging that he authorized a leak to the media in order to "advance his personal interests" and then misled internal investigators and Comey about the matter.
Lying to federal investigators is a federal crime and the report was seen by some analysts as a road map for federal charges against McCabe.
So far the DOJ hasn't done a damn thing about it. I know they don't have to and I know they don't want to!
Mueller was appointed in May 2017, the FISA warrant on Page lasted until about Sept. 2017. In short, the last half of the surveillance of Page didn't 'precede' the Mueller investigation. In FACT, Rosenstein didn't sign off on the last extension of the Page warrant until June, 2017. Between April 2017 and June 2017, 10 pages of 'intelligence' were added to the FISA warrant.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. But the FBI "claims" their investigation began on July 31, 2016 by way of the boasts of a drunken wanna be in the Trump campaign. That investigation was headed by the infamous Peter Strzok. That is where the IG investigation is primarily focused. From there the IG can look to how Comey and others brought about a Special Counsel investigation.