CIA, FBI, Director of National Intelligence working with Attorney General Barr to review Russia probe origins

  
Via:  cms5  •  2 months ago  •  61 comments

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

Find text within the comments Find 
 
cms5
1  seeder  cms5    2 months ago

More step into investigating the investigation.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1  It Is ME  replied to  cms5 @1    2 months ago

This could Hurt ! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

Time for more Dem. Subpoenas to keep their constituents focus elsewhere ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.1    2 months ago
Time for more Dem. Subpoenas to keep their constituents focus elsewhere !

Like Trump Jr's subpoena!  Oh wait, that's Senate....

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    2 months ago

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 ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.2    2 months ago
It's already been negotiated for time....unlike Democrats in the house that Ignore any negotiations

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

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    2 months ago
Why should they negotiate with a hostile witness?

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 !

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.4    2 months ago
So just throw out the word "Contempt" and be done with it ?
  • Someone steals something, it's called theft.
  • Someone kills someone, it's called murder.
  • Someone refuses to honor a legal subpoena, it's called contempt.

You have a problem with legal definitions?

Barr doesn't seem to be "Hostile" ! He's giving them pretty much everything he can with in the law.

That's a lie.  Barr can release to Congress EVERYTHING, even Grand Jury info has been released to Congress before.

A Contemptuous thing to do huh !

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    2 months ago
Barr can release to Congress EVERYTHING, even Grand Jury info has been released to Congress before.

"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. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  cms5 @1    2 months ago

Voted up!  We need answers!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Is there some reason we are having 4 or 5 seeds about the same story? Did Trump just resign or something?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago
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?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago

Ya, it's a big story!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    2 months ago

Nah, it's the usual nothingberder

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.1    2 months ago

You mean like the Mueller report, and the Dems in the House subpoenas of everyone associated with Trump?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.2    2 months ago

What the huh?

 
 
 
cms5
2.3  seeder  cms5  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    2 months ago
He (Trump) 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."

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.

 
 
 
cms5
3.1  seeder  cms5  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  cms5 @3.1    2 months ago
Actually, Trump has been saying that the investigators need to be investigated very publicly for quite some time...even before Barr was appointed AG.

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.


 
 
 
cms5
3.1.2  seeder  cms5  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.1    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.1    2 months ago
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.

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? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago

OMG....are you going to claim Trump said 10,000 lies again?   jrSmiley_38_smiley_image.gif

Congress requested the DOJ to look into this matter many months ago.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 months ago
There isn't a person on this earth that would bet anything significant that Trump is telling the truth.

Including his own Attorney General.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 months ago

Large probe will occur after the indictments. The uni-bomber is extremely horny and awaiting shower friends.

 
 
 
luther28
4.1  luther28  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4    2 months ago
Large probe

Let us hope it is jumbo sized.

 
 
 
luther28
5  luther28    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
5.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  luther28 @5    2 months ago

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? 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Dean Moriarty @5.1    2 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @5.1.1    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.2    2 months ago
Trump learned from the best- Barack Obama- on obstruction.

Oh please do tell me when Obama denied all Committee requests for documents. I'll wait...

Maybe you should research how much Obama obstructed all of the congressional investigations.

Maybe you should prove that with links. 

 
 
 
cms5
5.2  seeder  cms5  replied to  luther28 @5    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
luther28
5.2.1  luther28  replied to  cms5 @5.2    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
cms5
5.2.2  seeder  cms5  replied to  luther28 @5.2.1    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
luther28
5.2.3  luther28  replied to  cms5 @5.2.2    2 months ago

I must agree, with both points.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6  Sunshine    2 months ago
when one side or the other does not get the answer they desire.

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?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sunshine @6    2 months ago

El Chapo is requesting a step stool. Evidently James Comey at 6ft 8 is still too tall bent over.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.2  Split Personality  replied to  Sunshine @6    2 months ago
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,

The GOP spent over $82 million tax payer dollars on  four Clinton related scandals pushed by the Republicans lawmakers leading up to a much anticipated report from Star the Independent Council. Finally the findings of the Star report were released in September 2000, with the following conclusion. “This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct.”

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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Split Personality @6.2    2 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.1    2 months ago

You bet we do

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.1    2 months ago
Benghazi investigation found several felony crimes.

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."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/house-benghazi-committee-files-final-report-and-shuts-down/95336692/

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.1    2 months ago
Benghazi investigation found several felony crimes.

It did? Who was charged and prosecuted? Link? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @6    2 months ago
After two years of investigation and absolutely no evidence of collusion is found

Another person who did not read the report.  Next you'll be saying the report exonerated Trump of obstruction...

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3    2 months ago
no evidence of collusion is found

What evidence do you have?  Please share.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion T
he Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion, but did find two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @6.3.1    2 months ago
What evidence do you have?  Please share.

I have Mueller's report.  You should read it some time.

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.3  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.2    2 months ago
I have Mueller's report.  You should read it some time.

Great...do you have a link for all of this?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @6.3.3    2 months ago

Great...do you have a link for all of this?

Sure, here you go.  Everything you want is at this link.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.5  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.4    2 months ago
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.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @6.3.5    2 months ago
Just provide a link to your source.

That was my source.  Try it, it isn't hard, you can do it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.7  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.6    2 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @6.3.7    2 months ago
Why are you so reluctant to link your 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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.3.9  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.8    2 months ago

Oh good grief....you made the statement, if you don't want to back it up, fine. 

Will just file it under BS.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @6.3.9    2 months ago
Oh good grief....you made the statement

Yes, and you are trying to dispute it while refusing to look into first.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

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."

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    2 months ago
I see that Try Gowdy, who's as straight a shooter as there was

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 )jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @7.1    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.1    2 months ago
In our system of government, the Executive Branch attempts to prosecute criminal activity, not Congress.  
  • Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress of the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.
  • Congress’s oversight authority derives from its implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.
  • Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.
  • Oversight also is derived from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. Congress could not reasonably exercise its powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/the-oversight-function-of-congress/

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.1    2 months ago
I don' think you understand Congressional oversight in general or the purpose of the Select committee in particular.

I don't think you do. 

Here's a hint. As the head of the Committee, he was not a prosecutor out to nail Hillary Clinton for a crime.

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. 

In our system of government, the Executive Branch attempts to prosecute criminal activity, not Congress.

The Congress can refer prosecution to the DOJ. They did quite a bit of that in the last 2 years. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.2    2 months ago
. 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.

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.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @7.1.3    2 months ago
ou obviously didn't watch Trey Gowdy's questioning of Hillary Clinton.

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.5    2 months ago
Well no. The goal of an oversight committee is to find out what happened. 

That's not what Kevin McCarthy said. 

You still seem confused.

Nope, just citing the facts. 

He, and the Committee as a whole, were not prosecutors trying to indict anyone.

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. 

It's not his fault if the facts showed her to be dishonest and incompetent.  

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? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.4    2 months ago
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.

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?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/28/house-benghazi-report-clinton-attack-military

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






devangelical
ArkansasHermit-too


57 visitors