CIA, FBI, Director of National Intelligence working with Attorney General Barr to review Russia probe origins
"Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant," Barr said, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month. "I'd like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort designed to stop the threat as it's being represented."
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Washington (CNN)Attorney General William Barr is working closely with the CIA to review the origins of the Russia investigation and surveillance issues surrounding Donald Trump's presidential campaign, according to a source familiar with the matter, broadening an effort that the President has long demanded to involve all major national security agencies.
Barr is working in close collaboration with CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray, the source said.
There had been speculation as to why Haspel had been spotted at the Justice Department in recent weeks. Wray testified last week he was assisting Barr.
Trump often called for the Justice Department and others to review how the FBI began investigating the connection between his campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He told reporters Tuesday he did not direct Barr to call on intelligence agencies to join his review of the Russia probe.
"I didn't ask him to do that," Trump said at the White House ahead of his departure to Louisiana. "I didn't know it."
"But I think it's a great thing that he did it. I saw it last night, and they want to look at how that whole hoax got started," he continued. "You know what? I am so proud of our attorney general, that he is looking into it. I think it's great."
As CNN previously reported , US attorney John Durham in Connecticut is heading up the effort with Barr. The source said Durham and Barr are doing a comprehensive review, and Durham is with working with the Justice Department's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, as well.
At a hearing last month, Barr said, "I think spying did occur" on the Trump campaign, but declined to elaborate on his concerns.
"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," Barr told Congress then.
He later defended the term , saying at a separate hearing that he used it because "it is the broadest word incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collection."
"Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant," Barr said, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month. "I'd like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort designed to stop the threat as it's being represented."
US Attorney John Huber in Utah is no longer involved on Russia issues. Huber had originally been tasked with looking at allegations of surveillance abuse by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but has been in a holding pattern as the inspector general completes his review of the surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
Huber's review of other issues related to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation is nearing completion, the source said.
The DNI and CIA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump and his GOP allies on Capitol Hill repeatedly claimed -- without evidence -- that a warrant obtained in 2016 to allow the FBI to monitor Page was evidence of surveillance abuse by the Justice Department and FBI.
Conservative critics of special counsel Robert Mueller have argued that his work sprang from the fruit of a poisonous tree, suggesting that the FISA warrant application was tainted because it included some of the dossier compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele that was paid for by Democrats. They also point to the FBI's use of an informant to meet with former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Democrats, however, say the FISA warrant on Page was justified because of his contacts with Russia and that the FBI and Justice Department followed proper protocols in successfully getting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve the warrant and subsequent renewals.
This story has been updated.
CNN's Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
37 visitors
More step into investigating the investigation.
This could Hurt !
Time for more Dem. Subpoenas to keep their constituents focus elsewhere !
Like Trump Jr's subpoena! Oh wait, that's Senate....
It's already been negotiated for time....unlike Democrats in the house that Ignore any negotiations.... and then claim "Foul" !
by the way…..have the democrats looked at the unredacted FULL Mueller report in the uber secret room yet ?
Why should they negotiate with a hostile witness? Have you forgotten that they have been told to NOT cooperate with House Committees investigating Trump?
Trump Vows Stonewall of ‘All’ House Subpoenas, Setting Up Fight Over Powers
So just throw out the word "Contempt" and be done with it ?
Barr doesn't seem to be "Hostile" ! He's giving them pretty much everything he can with in the law.
A Contemptuous thing to do huh !
You have a problem with legal definitions?
That's a lie. Barr can release to Congress EVERYTHING, even Grand Jury info has been released to Congress before.
Lying to Congress? Refusing to honor a legal subpoena? YES IT IS!!!
I feel that I should also point out that we're talking about Junior, not Barr.
"Business as usual" is not a good thing. That's why the Dems are sooooo pissed off right now. They can't control a President, and this President hasn't hurt this country one bit !
"We the people", is makin' us some money now. Luv it !
Oh, and in case you wanna bring up the China Crap, Even "Crying Chucky Schumer' is on board with what Trump is doing with China.
Voted up! We need answers!
Is there some reason we are having 4 or 5 seeds about the same story? Did Trump just resign or something?
Never seems to bother you when 4 or 5 "Hate Trump" seeds are here, so why whine now?
Ya, it's a big story!
Nah, it's the usual nothingberder
You mean like the Mueller report, and the Dems in the House subpoenas of everyone associated with Trump?
What the huh?
This article adds the CIA and the FBI to what has already been posted regarding Durham being appointed. So, although it runs along the same lines...it is indeed additional information for many to review.
There isn't a person on this earth that would bet anything significant that Trump is telling the truth. That is what happens when you lie all the time. You have no credibility.
I would say the odds are much better that Trump is lying, about not having spoke to Barr about this, than the odds he is telling the truth.
Actually, Trump has been saying that the investigators need to be investigated very publicly for quite some time...even before Barr was appointed AG.
Barr strikes me as the type of AG that will move in the direction the law takes him.
The request for an investigation into the FBI and DOJ's handling of spying on Trump came from Congress many months ago, but Sessions sat on it and now there is an AG who has a backbone and will proceed.
Agreed! I never thought of Sessions as anything other than 'dopey' from the seven dwarfs.
So is it your posit that the seeded article is lying about Sessions' assigning US Attorney John Huber a YEAR AGO to investigate those exact issues?
OMG....are you going to claim Trump said 10,000 lies again?
Congress requested the DOJ to look into this matter many months ago.
Including his own Attorney General.
What the hell is wrong with our Country, now we investigate the investigators, who will investigate them when one side or the other does not get the answer they desire.
This is not a Government it has devolved into a f@#kfest.
If nobody investigated J. Edgar Hoover’s abuse of investigative power we would not have the knowledge we now have regarding his abuse of power. How do you prevent government abuse if one is not even willing to admit it exists or are willing to investigate it?
The Agency didn't investigate J. Edgar Hoover Dean, the Congress did. The seed is about the Agencies investigating themselves and Trump is obstructing any and all attempts by Congress to investigate.
Trump learned from the best- Barack Obama- on obstruction.
He gave them Barr, what more do they want? Oh, that is right the Dems aren't interested in finding out if the whole collusion investigation was based on fraudulent FISA's. Nor are they interested in investigating why the Obama state department was outing Trump campaign officials as fast they could. Nor are they interested in why the Steele report, that was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and was never verified was used as a part of the FISA warrants. Nor are they interested in justice for Carter Page, who was never questioned by Comey or Mueller- much the less charged; but was deemed a master spy that had to everyone remotely associated with him on the FISA warrants. They just want Trump, however they can get him. Using any methods, legal or not, to do so.
Maybe you should research how much Obama obstructed all of the congressional investigations. Nah, that would requiring taking off the leftist blinders. See how far the Democratic House gets when they get the same steaming pile of obstruction that the Obama administration gave the Republicans.
Oh please do tell me when Obama denied all Committee requests for documents. I'll wait...
Maybe you should prove that with links.
It isn't so much that there is a 'desired' answer as there is a need to make certain that laws cannot be manipulated based on falsified or unverified documents. Namely the Steele Dossier.
If answers are not reached, then it may very well be possible for administrations to 'spy' on the campaigns of the opposition without proper predication. The bar must be set higher for citizens of this Nation.
It once was, like a limbo stick we collectively lowered it somewhere along the way. Probably post Watergate when we saw first hand that our politicians were as flawed as the rest of us.
I would venture to say that our Politicians have more flaws than most Americans who vote for them.
We know that there have been instances of investigators who abuse their powers...and we, as a Nation, should make certain that the LEGAL bar is never lowered.
I must agree, with both points.
I believe Trump did get the desired answer. After two years of investigation and absolutely no evidence of collusion is found, would you not agree that we should be looking seriously into the reason for spending $35 million?
What do you suggest? Obviously what comes around goes around and around and around for those who choose to remember all of the partisan BS investigations all the way back to Joe McCarthy.
The FBI, CIA and other Law enforcement agencies will say they had/have a duty to investigate, which they did, now we investigate that? Where does it stop?
Hence Benghazi, reportedly 22 million dollars that would have been better used for survivors benefits for the fallen.
Who knows what we could have done with the 82 million wasted on Whitewater and 3 other Clinton investigations by Ken Starr which ended thusly,
Sounds like a lot of Southern Border dollars pissed away,
and here we are with 3 concurrent investigations in to the investigations.....
Our enemies are laughing as they become more capitalistic and less communist, while we are leaning further and further towards the political purges of Mao & Stalin.
I suggest we need to know how a two year $30 million investigation resulting in no evidence got started? Was there any probable cause?
Benghazi investigation found several felony crimes. Obama's DOJ refused to prosecute Hillary and instead sent out their lackey Comey to say a complete dolt has been running our state department.
You bet we do
Really? Then why didn't the eight partisan Republican investigations tell the public about them?
"The Select Committee on Benghazi initially released its findings in June but remained in place for months afterward trying to declassify supporting documents like emails and interview transcripts for public release.
The final report, not including dissenting views from committee Democrats, clocks in at more than 322,000 words. It was added to the official House record without fanfare on Dec. 7 by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the panel’s chairman.
The panel, which spent more than $7.8 million over two and a half years, disbanded at the end of the 114th Congress, before a new Congress begins in January."
"The report did not single out wrongdoing by then-secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although some Republicans on the panel alleged that overall concern for her political future influenced and hampered some of the decision-making surrounding policy in Libya."
And of course Republicans were definitely NOT using the investigations in an attempt to sabotage Hillary's future political prospects...
"House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told Fox News that because of the committee, "her numbers are dropping."
Oh, that's right, they literally admitted as much on air. Dishonesty, hypocrisy, double standards, just your every day conservative republican political playbook being followed to the letter. When people convince themselves it's the will of some unseen almighty God, the ends always justify the means.
It did? Who was charged and prosecuted? Link?
Another person who did not read the report. Next you'll be saying the report exonerated Trump of obstruction...
What evidence do you have? Please share.
I have Mueller's report. You should read it some time.
Great...do you have a link for all of this?
Sure, here you go. Everything you want is at this link .
You got it from somewhere....it isn't that difficult. Just provide a link to your source.
That was my source. Try it, it isn't hard, you can do it.
Can you be more specific than the Google page? Why are you so reluctant to link your quotes?
Can you not back up and cite your own quotes?
Why are you so reluctant to look for yourself? What are you afraid of? Go to the link I gave you and type in "Mueller Report", the fact that it is so extremely easy to view, yet you refuse to do so speaks volumes.
If I'd referenced a specific news article, or opinion I would happily provide a direct link (and have many many times), however you want a link to a source.
If you truly wanted to see it you would have, in this there are hundreds of links that take you to the same specific document, yet you refuse to look for yourself. This indicates to me you are not looking for info, you are looking for something (anything) to argue about rather than address what is in the report.
Oh good grief....you made the statement, if you don't want to back it up, fine.
Will just file it under BS.
Yes, and you are trying to dispute it while refusing to look into first.
I see that Try Gowdy, who's as straight a shooter as there was in Congress, told the investigators yesterday that they need to look specifically at emails between Brennan and Comey in December 2016. Be interesting to see what he's referring to
"How did the FBI assess Christopher Steele? They have their own internal documents. Part of what Lindsey [Graham] wants to make public are their own FBI documents where they did their own assessment and I think you’ll be surprised as to whether or not they viewed Steele as being credible…They’re [Graham and Ratcliffe] talking about 302’s where an FBI informant [Christopher Steele] said he’d do anything in the world to make sure Donald Trump lost. That wasn’t a DNC employee. That was an FBI informant....
It is what you described in addition to the withholding of exculpatory information which is what has Johnny Ratcliffe so exercised. And they made no effort to corroborate the dossier until after it had been used for the application and a renewal. No effort. It’s not that they failed. They made no effort to do it. So whoever is investigating this, tell them to look for emails between Brennan and Comey in December 2016."
I see that as an almost clever Freudian slip. Yes Trey, tried for 2 years and 7.8 million dollars to nail Hillary Clinton for any crime, only to come away empty handed as well.
It seems to be the American way, although he did successfully embarrass Ben Carson about the whole Dining Room table fiasco and saved us taxpayers $31,000.00.
Yay, Trey ( Harold Watson Gowdy III )
es Trey, tried for 2 years and 7.8 million dollars to nail Hillary Clinton for any crime, only to come away empty handed as well.
I don' think you understand Congressional oversight in general or the purpose of the Select committee in particular.
Here's a hint. As the head of the Committee, he was not a prosecutor out to nail Hillary Clinton for a crime. In our system of government, the Executive Branch attempts to prosecute criminal activity, not Congress.
Attacking Gowdy for not prosecuting someone as a Congressman is like complaining about the President not passing a law.
So no, the intent shouldn't be to "nail" anyone, but Congress does have oversight responsibilities to make sure the executive is obeying the law. In the case of Trey, he was without a doubt, simply trying to nail Hillary as were all the dishonest Republicans who decides the ends justified the means.
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping." - Republican Kevin McCarthy admitting Republicans used the investigation to politically injure Hillary's chances in an election.
Today, the congressional oversight isn't about trying to harm Trump in 2020, it's about the numerous counts of obstruction, the clear call from the Mueller report for Congress to decide how to reenable congressional oversight responsibilities that Republicans had chosen to abandon two years ago. And the administrations blatant refusal to comply is further reason for a full accounting of their activities and a public airing of their dirtiest of laundry, and there is no doubt Trumps camp is chock full of the dirtiest, stinkiest laundry America has ever seen. Nixon's dirty laundry will look like it was dry cleaned when compared to Trumps filthy over-stretched skid-marked tighty whiteys.
I don't think you do.
You obviously didn't watch Trey Gowdy's questioning of Hillary Clinton. They didn't CARE if they could nail Clinton for a crime, they just wanted to muddy the waters until after the election.
The Congress can refer prosecution to the DOJ. They did quite a bit of that in the last 2 years.
It's amazing to me that simply explaining how an almost unguarded ambassador came to be killed in the middle of a warzone and why the administration falsely claimed he was killed after a demonstration over a movie got out of control is somehow a bad thing.
Today, the congressional oversight isn't about trying to harm Trump in 2020,
I hope you didn't type that with a straight face. C'mon. That doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.
I did.
They didn't CARE if they could nail Clinton for a crime,
Well no. The goal of an oversight committee is to find out what happened. You still seem confused. He, and the Committee as a whole, were not prosecutors trying to indict anyone.
It's not his fault if the facts showed her to be dishonest and incompetent.
That's not what Kevin McCarthy said.
Nope, just citing the facts.
That's good because if they were they would have been utter failures.
The FACT is that the Select Committee didn't contribute to the facts of the Benghazi attack.
Dishonest? In what way Sean? If Clinton was dishonest, why didn't Trey refer her to the DOJ? After all, you said he was a straight shooter right Sean? Oh and BTFW, which page of Gowdy's report states that Clinton was dishonest and incompetent?
It's simply amazing to me that there are some dumb fucks out there who thought it made any difference between saying it was a pre-planned terrorist attack or an impromptu riot started by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. Only someone severely brain damaged would think that was some huge difference that mattered to anyone, as if because they died from an impromptu riot it was somehow better than dying from a pre-planned terror attack. And if President Obama was actually trying to obfuscate the truth that it was a terror attack, then why the fuck did Obama say the day after the attack " No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done".
The bullshit narrative from some really stupid right wing pundits cost us millions of dollars and wasted years of congresses time with at least eight partisan investigation that still concluded Hillary could not have prevented the attack and faulted the military for its slow response in sending resources to Benghazi during the deadly 2012 attacks on a US outpost, despite clear orders from Barack Obama and the then US defense secretary Leon Panetta. There was no conspiracy, there was no intentional misleading of anyone. We did have multiple riots inspired by the anti-Muslim video that day at multiple embassies throughout the region and Susan Rice was the only one who suggested they were related which didn't make a bit of difference to anyone. As if there were any actual voters who were thinking "Oh, well I'll vote for Obama as long as there aren't any terror attacks close the the election. Oh, what's this? Soldiers and an ambassador die in an Embassy attack? Well that sounds like terrorism, I guess I won't be voting for Obama... what? It was just a riot inspired by an anti-Islamic video? Oh, well that's different, at least it wasn't terrorism..." How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that shit?