quote:Michael J. Glennon: "I had noticed for years that U.S. national security changed little from one administration to the next, but the continuity was so striking mid-way into the Obama administration that I thought it was time to address the question directly.
Never waste a good crisis! De aanslagen op 9/11 kwamen natuurlijk als een godsgeschenk voor de deep state. Onder het mom van bescherming van het land en diens burgers, werd het veiligheidsapparaat nog verdere bevoegdheden gegeven.quote:Glennon draws from the theories of British writer Walter Bagehot (1826–1877), who discussed the structure of British government in his book The English Constitution (1867). He argues that Bagehot's thesis of a "double government" in nineteenth century Britain also applies to the U.S. today. Glennon posits that there are two institutions in control: the "Madisonian" public institutions of the congress, presidency and the courts, which maintain the necessary public illusion that they are in charge and in control of policy, while a secretive "Trumanite" network of unelected, unaccountable national security bureaucrats actually make and set policy that the Madisonians appear to implement as their own. Glennon warns that control by the Trumanite network weakens constitutional restraints upon government, such as checks and balances and oversight, and results in less democracy, and a greater risk of despotism.
De claim van de staat is inderdaad niet geloofwaardig, want de FBI archiveert alle informatie en documentatie in sentinel.twitter:realDonaldTrump twitterde op zondag 15-03-2020 om 18:29:03 So now it is reported that, after destroying his life & the life of his wonderful family (and many others also), the FBI, working in conjunction with the Justice Department, has “lost” the records of General Michael Flynn. How convenient. I am strongly considering a Full Pardon! reageer retweet
quote:Op donderdag 30 mei 2019 09:40 schreef dellipder het volgende:
Even een reminder:
[…] but I will say that when we met with him Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him along with Edward O'Callahan who is the principal associate deputy on March 5th we specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position.
Wat in deze clip verteld wordt over de OLC eventjes daargelaten kan hieruit onttrokken en benadrukt worden dat het frame dat procureur-generaal William Barr een solistische exercitie heeft uitgevoerd niet berust op de werkelijkheid.
Edward O'Callahan en Rod Rosenstein maakten deel uit van het proces dat leidde naar de beslissing over de “obstruction of justice”-aspect van het sco-onderzoek.
Nadat Sally Yates op 30 januari 2017 als procureur-generaal werd ontslagen vanwege haar verzet tegen haar superieur, de president van de Verenigde Staten, en Jeff Sessions op 2 maart 2017 zichzelf verschoonde van de lopende Rusland-onderzoek werd Rosenstein hierover waarnemend procureur-generaal.
In deze hoedanigheid stelde hij 17 mei 2017 de special counsel in en was hij eindverantwoordelijke en toezichthouder over dit onderzoek.
Waarom nam Rosenstein dit besluit?
Waarom nam Rosenstein het besluit dat feitelijk ervoor zorgde dat het FBI-onderzoek van de auspiciën van de FBI werd weggehaald en onder de autoriteit van het ministerie van Justitie werd gebracht?
Dit had in elk geval niets te maken met de memo's van James Comey die hij via Daniel Richman naar The New York Times lekte ergens tussen 15 en 16 mei 2017.
Dit had alles te maken met Andrew McCabe (en zijn team met onder andere Peter Strzok en Lisa Page) die na het ontslag van James Comey op 9 mei 2017 een strafrechtelijk onderzoek instelde tegen de Amerikaanse president naar spionage en het belemmeren van de rechtsgang.
Het was McCabe die de “obstruction of justice”-zaak had geopend.
Dit is de achtergrond waartegen de commotie over de OLC moet worden afgezet.
Een gezamenlijk verklaring van de special counsel en de procureur-generaal is hierover uitgevaardigd:
Met andere woorden Robert Mueller zegt dat William Barr niet heeft gelogen en William Barr zegt dat Robert Mueller niet heeft gelogen.
Er zit en zat sowieso geen licht tussen wat Mueller en Barr hebben verklaard.
In essentie vertelde Mueller aan Barr dat als de feiten van deze zaak zo voor de hand liggend zouden zijn, zou hij de OLC buiten beschouwing laten, maar dat was niet in dit geval, dus koos hij ervoor om geen precedent te creëren in lang bestaand beleid.
In the future the facts of a case against a President might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this not such a case.
Eigenlijk, in de context waarin Barr de beslissing omschrijft om het aloude OLC-beleid niet te doorbreken, is de vraag waarom McCabe überhaupt een onderzoek naar het belemmeren van de rechtsgang opende zonder eerst het ministerie van Justitie te raadplegen.
In Jip en Janneke-taal; Robert Mueller koos om de OLC-richtlijnen te hanteren, omdat de feiten van de zaak het verlaten daarvan niet rechtvaardigden.
Mueller kon geen beslissing nemen over het gedeelte van het onderzoek betreffende het belemmeren van de rechtsgang, omdat de feiten daarover bij het openen daarvan al heel erg gebrekkig waren.
De special counsel zegt feitelijk, dat ze niet weten waarover McCabe het heeft en vervolgens hebben William Barr en Rod Rosenstein hun conclusie getrokken.
Resumé; Robert Mueller werd aangesteld, omdat Rosenstein vond dat McCabe losgeslagen en irrationeel was.
In feite is dit wat ook Mueller concludeerde, maar zijn bewoordingen maken het niet heel eenvoudig dit te ontwaren.
quote:Hopefully the Durham investigation will reveal the true extent of the spying operation, and how many innocent Americans had their rights violated and their privacy compromised. Another important question yet to be resolved is when Spygate started. For example, George Papadopoulos was being targeted by foreign intelligence services like Australia, perhaps at Brennan’s behest, months before Donald Trump was the Republican nominee. This raises the question, were members of other then-still active Republican campaigns being targeted in this time frame as well? Was this part of a general push to begin weaving the Russian collusion story against any potential GOP 2016 nominee, and not just Trump? If the answer to that question is yes, then it will be clear that the entire enterprise was not an intelligence operation at all but a criminal political conspiracy of unprecedented scope and impact. It would indeed make Watergate look like a third-rate burglary.
quote:
FBI Lawyer Referred for Criminal Prosecution by Horowitz Was Primary FBI Attorney on Trump–Russia Case
Kevin Clinesmith sent multiple text messages showing strong anti-Trump bias, including 'Viva le resistance'
A former FBI attorney reportedly referred for criminal prosecution by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz—for allegedly altering an email connected to the surveillance warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—was assigned in early 2017 as “the primary FBI attorney assigned” to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russian election interference.
[...]
In relatie tot het FBI-onderzoek Crossfire Hurricane twee opmerkingen. Het onderzoek van de inspecteur-generaal Micheal Horowitz heeft geconcludeerd dat hierin op zijn minst 17 belangrijke fouten en weglatingen zijn gemaakt. Daarom is het hele FBI-team onderwerp van onderzoek via het ministerie van Justitie en de FBI (het onderzoek van openbaar aanklager John Durham en via OPR; dat is de afdeling Interne Zaken van Justitie).quote:Op dinsdag 31 maart 2020 22:54 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
Zal Clinesmith de schuld op zich nemen en alleen gaan brommen, of zal hij belastende verklaringen tegen anderen afleggen? Hopelijk krijgt die rat dezelfde behandeling als de slachtoffers van de corrupte justitiekliek, waaronder generaal Flynn en Roger Stone, die ze financieel kapotgeprocedeerd hebben.
Prima, toch?quote:Op donderdag 2 april 2020 15:09 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
Schiff en zijn handlangers gaan weer een commissie optuigen voor een nieuwe poging Trump een oor aan te naaien:
https://thehill.com/homen(...)commission-to-review
https://www.washingtonpos(...)8136c1a6d_story.html
quote:Investigation Into Origins of Trump-Russia Probe Continues Despite Coronavirus
Connecticut U.S. attorney leading investigation began CIA and other interviews earlier this year
Investigators examining the beginnings of the 2016 probe of possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian election interference are pushing to complete their inquiry despite the coronavirus pandemic.
The former U.K. Ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood, who in 2016 alerted the late Republican Sen. John McCain about related allegations, said he had been contacted in connection with the probe. “My answer to an enquiry by email from a member of the team about 2016 some weeks ago was that I had nothing to add to what was already on the public record,” Mr. Wood said in an email on Thursday, declining further comment.
The investigators, led by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, were refused by British authorities earlier this year when they requested an interview—outside formal, more time-consuming channels—with former British spy Christopher Steele, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Steele had compiled the related allegations, some of which were salacious and have since been dismissed, in a dossier.
Mr. Durham was tapped last year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct the review. The probe, according to people familiar with it, is proceeding on multiple fronts, examining the initial surfacing of the allegations in 2016 as well as a separate 2017 U.S. intelligence report that concluded Moscow interfered in the presidential election in part to help then-candidate Donald Trump.
Mr. Durham’s team began interviews earlier this year at the Central Intelligence Agency, according to people familiar with the process. It has focused on people who are or were working at the National Intelligence Council, a unit of the Director of National Intelligence’s office that coordinated the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s 2016 election interference, as well as on individuals at other agencies whose work fed into that assessment, one official said.
Increasingly, investigators are focused on former CIA Director John Brennan, examining whether he pushed for a blunter assessment about Russia’s motivations than others in the intelligence community felt was warranted, people familiar with the matter said.
A spokesman for Mr. Brennan declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Mr. Durham. In an interview last month Mr. Barr said only that Mr. Durham and his team were “making good progress on a lot of fronts.”
That focus has heightened tensions between investigators and U.S. intelligence officials. “There was no political interference” by Mr. Brennan or anyone else, said a former senior intelligence official involved in preparing the report. A 2004 intelligence overhaul that added new procedures to “tease out and highlight” analysts’ differences—meant to address failures that occurred in assessing Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs in the early 2000s—“worked perfectly,” the official said. A U.S. official familiar with the Durham review and with the compilation of the report, made public in January 2017, agreed, stressing that its conclusions have held up under scrutiny from lawmakers and intelligence agencies’ own internal reviews in the more than three years since it was published.
At least one former CIA official has been seeking to hire a lawyer in recent weeks in connection with the inquiry, some of the people said.
Mr. Trump has long feuded with Mr. Brennan, who has been highly critical of the president since leaving office in January 2017. In 2018, the president said he was revoking the former CIA chief’s security clearance.
Interviews of National Intelligence Council personnel and others have been aboveboard and “not adversarial,” focusing on how the assessment was put together and the differing viewpoints, according to the official who spoke about them.
The additional outreach for interviews on various fronts represents an acceleration in Mr. Durham’s nearly yearlong inquiry. Mr. Barr has said he would like to reach conclusions by the summer.
Mr. Durham drove to Washington last month from his home in Connecticut to keep the probe going full-bore when flights became scarce because of the coronavirus.
Intelligence agencies agreed in 2016 that Russia’s interference in the presidential election was aimed at hurting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and boosting President Trump’s election chances. The CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation expressed high confidence in that assessment, while the National Security Agency had moderate confidence. Those disagreements have long been publicly known, and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee said in 2018 that the conflict “appropriately represents analytic differences” between the agencies. The committee’s report also concluded the Russian efforts were meant to help Mr. Trump.
Part of the disagreement was over whether a source the CIA relied on in the intelligence assessment, who was close to the Kremlin, had specific knowledge that Mr. Putin wanted to help Mr. Trump, one person said. Mr. Durham’s team appears to be pressing people involved in that report on whether Mr. Brennan sought to steer the intelligence community agencies to sign on to a “high confidence” assessment, people familiar with the matter said.
It couldn’t be determined whether Mr. Durham has obtained evidence beyond that accessed by Senate investigators.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s 2019 report said there were repeated contacts between Russia-linked entities and Trump campaign officials, but investigators didn’t establish that anyone affiliated with the GOP presidential campaign knowingly conspired with Russian interference efforts.
Adam Schiff verbergt nog steeds de getuigenverklaring van inspecteur-generaal Micheal Atkinson.quote:Op zaterdag 4 april 2020 17:37 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
https://www.google.com/am(...)hone-call-report.amp
Another one bites the dust
quote:For years, we civil libertarians were told that our concerns about the secret court that oversees the FBI’s applications to monitor U.S. citizens were overblown. So what if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved more than 99% of all applications. The bureau and Justice Department must follow an onerous process, we were assured, that protects innocent citizens from being snooped on by their government.
Those assurances, as it turns out, were not very reliable. On Tuesday, the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a new report that found systematic errors of fact in the FBI’s applications for warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The memo does not speak to the materiality or significance of those errors — but they are startling nonetheless.
Analyse laat ook zien dat de media grotendeels het beleid van de regering bepaald.quote:Op dinsdag 10 maart 2020 12:56 schreef EdvandeBerg het volgende:
Interessant youtube filmpje van Millennial Millie.
Michael Glennon heeft hier een boek over geschreven. Hij vroeg zich af hoe het kwam dat bij het komen en gaan van verschillende presidenten een kern van het beleid steeds ongewijzigd bleef. Buitenlandse oorlogen, regime change, de steeds verder groeiende macht van de veiligheidsdiensten en de 'surveillance' van de eigen burger en die in andere landen.
Je bedoelt dus dat ze in die positie zullen blijven? Steeds meer mensen worden wakker en beginnen de media door te krijgen, ik merk dat duidelijk om mij heen.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 09:34 schreef borealist het volgende:
[..]
Analyse laat ook zien dat de media grotendeels het beleid van de regering bepaald.
Bij Trump kreeg de media haar zin niet.. en dat hebben ze laten merken. De media blijft de ware machthebber.
De media is oppermachtig, verzet is zinloos. De pen is machtiger dan het zwaard, en wie leeft bij het zwaard zal sterven door het zwaard. Je moet je dus gaan afvragen wat machtiger is dan de pen.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 10:59 schreef MangoTree het volgende:
[..]
Je bedoelt dus dat ze in die positie zullen blijven? Steeds meer mensen worden wakker en beginnen de media door te krijgen, ik merk dat duidelijk om mij heen.
Altijd wel interessant om te zien, Google trends.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 12:48 schreef borealist het volgende:
[..]
De media is oppermachtig, verzet is zinloos. De pen is machtiger dan het zwaard, en wie leeft bij het zwaard zal sterven door het zwaard. Je moet je dus gaan afvragen wat machtiger is dan de pen.
De Google search resultaten zijn al gemanipuleerd zo te zien door de deep state troll army.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 12:49 schreef MangoTree het volgende:
Altijd wel interessant om te zien, Google trends.
Heerlijk dit.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 12:57 schreef borealist het volgende:
[..]
De Google search resultaten zijn al gemanipuleerd zo te zien door de deep state troll army.
He he, eindelijk begint jouw omgeving de media door te krijgen. Op school wordt het je al uitgelegd, maar misschien waren ze er op dat moment niet.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 10:59 schreef MangoTree het volgende:
[..]
Je bedoelt dus dat ze in die positie zullen blijven? Steeds meer mensen worden wakker en beginnen de media door te krijgen, ik merk dat duidelijk om mij heen.
Haha, ik las paar dagen geleden weer een sterke van je: "Heb je zeker gelezen op facebook?".quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 13:27 schreef Vis1980 het volgende:
[..]
He he, eindelijk begint jouw omgeving de media door te krijgen. Op school wordt het je al uitgelegd, maar misschien waren ze er op dat moment niet.
Fijn dat je eindelijk begrijpt wat de taak van de media is.
Deep State Troll Army, aka Antifa. 1% van de tijd rellen in de echte wereld, 99% van de tijd rellen online. Onduidelijk hoeveel geld ze krijgen. Ze zitten ook op fok.quote:
Journalisten zijn gestopt zichzelf te beschouwen als personen die neutrale feiten vertellen. En dit komt door Ron Fournier die in 2008 het concept van accountability journalism introduceerde. In 2007-2008 heeft hij in de rol als hoofdredacteur van Associated Press (AP) in Washington richtlijnen ingevoerd dat verslaggevers vertelde om beide kanten van een belangrijk onderwerp te negeren en hun persoonlijke mening erbij te zetten in de verhalen die ze schreven.quote:Op zondag 5 april 2020 12:48 schreef borealist het volgende:
[..]
De media is oppermachtig, verzet is zinloos. De pen is machtiger dan het zwaard, en wie leeft bij het zwaard zal sterven door het zwaard. Je moet je dus gaan afvragen wat machtiger is dan de pen.
Loltwitter:CBS_Herridge twitterde op zondag 05-04-2020 om 23:53:28 #Ukraine Asked how many of the 29 FISAs reviewed by IG Horowitz, as part of the audit released last Tuesday, as well as the @carterwpage FISA warrants fell under the DOJ/NSD tenure of Michael Atkinson, OIG spox declined to comment beyond the publicly available reports. @CBSNews reageer retweet
twitter:CBS_Herridge twitterde op donderdag 09-04-2020 om 04:38:15 SCOOP: #FISA CBS News has reviewed transcript of conversation between George Papadopoulos and a confidential source working for the FBI less than two weeks before 2016 presidential election, and has published key excerpts below. @CBSNews https://t.co/Bs628ah2iF reageer retweet
De waarheid dat de informatie mogelijk Russische desinformatie was lekte wonderbaarlijk toevallig juist weer niet. Volgens oud FBI-directeur James Comey is de informatie dat de PSS het dossier in januari 2017 volledig ontkrachtte en andere voorbeelden van ontlastend bewijs op de een of andere manier nooit bij hem terechtgekomen. Dit betekent dat of de agenten van dit dossier bewust doorgingen met een neponderzoek en Comey te onwetend was om erachter te komen of hij wist dat er geen zaak was en hij vertelde de agenten dat ze verder moesten onderzoeken. Ik vermoed dat John Durham hierover uitsluitsel gaat geven.twitter:ChuckRossDC twitterde op zaterdag 11-04-2020 om 18:30:05 CNN created a feedback loop based on spin from gov't sources who insisted that the FBI wouldn't have used the Steele dossier for FISA without first validating it. That faulty logic guided most Steele dossier analysis for the next 2 years. https://t.co/yhh9wpbXP5 https://t.co/3aTRhrdopI reageer retweet
twitter:PolishPatriotTM twitterde op maandag 20-04-2020 om 01:57:10 President @realDonaldTrump: The top of the FBI is scum https://t.co/fIQPKlI7kP reageer retweet
quote:7 Devastating Revelations About Crossfire Hurricane In New Releases
Late last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham announced a webpage dedicated to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s probe into the Crossfire Hurricane illicit investigation into the Donald Trump campaign. Graham’s staff uploaded the four Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications, which were recently further declassified.
1. The FBI Always Intended to Spy on the Trump Campaign
When news first broke that the Obama administration had obtained a FISA order to surveil Page, Democrats and the left-leaning press argued the FBI’s surveillance of the former Trump foreign policy advisor didn’t constitute spying on the Trump campaign because the court-ordered surveillance didn’t begin until after Page had left the campaign.
“Conservatives tried to correct the record, noting that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order gave the government access to Page’s past emails and other electronic communications with members of the Trump campaign, but the mainstream media ignored this reality.”
However, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse later confirmed that, yes, “the FBI gathered substantial evidence of Page’s past electronic communications,” including multiple “emails between Page and members of the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign concerning campaign related matters.”
The recent declassifications of the FISA applications now expose a further reality: The FBI didn’t just seek access to past electronic communications with campaign members, the FBI believed Page would continue to communicate with the Trump campaign and sought the FISA court order to intercept those conversations.
While Page had announced he was “taking a leave of absence from his work with the campaign,” the first FISA application read, “because Page was one of the first identified foreign policy advisors for [Trump’s] campaign, the FBI believes that Page likely established close relationships with other members of [Trump’s campaign.]”
Accordingly, the FBI maintained in its initial FISA application that it “believes that Page likely established close relationships with other members of [Trump’s] campaign and likely would have continued to have access to members of [Trump’s] campaign, which he could exploit to attempt to exert influence on foreign policy matters, regardless of whatever formal role he played in the campaign.”
2. FBI Failed to Brief Trump About Its Page Suspicions
This newly declassified information highlights another huge impropriety in the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane: The FBI failed to provide the Trump campaign a defensive briefing about Page!
Here, it is helpful to remember what Counterintelligence Division Assistant Director E.W. “Bill” Priestap told the IG about why he opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation instead of providing the Trump campaign a defensive briefing:
we provide defensive briefings when we obtain information indicating a foreign adversary is trying or will try to influence a specific U.S. person, and when there is no indication that the specific U.S. person could be working with the adversary. In regard to the information the [Friendly Foreign Government] provided us, we had no indication as to which person in the Trump campaign allegedly received the offer from the Russians. There was no specific U.S. person identified. We also had no indication, whatsoever, that the person affiliated with the Trump campaign had rejected the alleged offer from the Russians.
In fact, the information we received indicated that Papadopoulos told the [Friendly Foreign Government] he felt confident Mr. Trump would win the election, and Papadopoulos commented that the Clintons had a lot of baggage and that the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. While Papadopoulos didn’t say where the Trump team had received the ‘material,’ one could reasonably infer that some of the material might have come from the Russians.
Had we provided a defensive briefing to someone on the Trump campaign, we would have alerted the campaign to what we were looking into, and, if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth. On the other hand, if no one on the Trump campaign was working with the Russians, an investigation could prove that.
Andrew McCabe, President Obama’s former deputy director of the FBI, likewise told the IG “that he did not consider a defensive briefing as an alternative to opening a counterintelligence case” because, “based on the [Friendly Foreign Government] information, the FBI did not know if any member of the campaign was coordinating with Russia and that the FBI did not brief people who ‘could potentially be the subjects that you are investigating or looking for.’”
McCabe added that, “in a sensitive counterintelligence matter, it was essential to have a better understanding of what was occurring before taking an overt step such as providing a defensive briefing.” There are plenty of problems with Priestap and McCabe’s rationale, as well as the entire predicate for Crossfire Hurricane, but let’s take them at their word, and apply the same reasoning to Page.
More than three months had passed since the FBI received word from a “Friendly Foreign Government” that former Trump advisor George Papadopoulos had learned that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary. Since then, the FBI believed it had discovered the identity of the man engaging with the Russians—Page.
So convinced was the FBI that they had their man that agents swore out four FISA applications attesting that the FBI “believes that Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. policy were likely being coordinated between the [Russian Intelligence Service] and Page, and possible others.” The FBI further swore to the court that Page “was identified by source reporting as an intermediary with Russian leadership in ‘a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation’ to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.”
So why didn’t the FBI provide the Trump campaign a defensive briefing about Page? Why didn’t the FBI warn Trump that it had evidence that Page was acting as an agent for Russia and that the campaign should be aware of that fact in communications with Page?
3. The FBI Spied on the Trump Administration
The FBI also failed to provide the Trump administration a defensive briefing concerning its belief that Russia sought to use Page’s connections with administration officials to influence America’s foreign policy. Instead, as the newly declassified information reveals, following Trump’s inauguration, the FBI sought to, and apparently succeeded in, intercepting communications between Page and members of the Trump administration.
In each renewal application, the FBI stated that “although the election has concluded, . . . the FBI believes the Russian Government will continue attempting to use U.S. based individuals, such as Page, to covertly influence U.S. foreign policy.” Then, after noting that “although Page no longer appears to be an advisor to the now President-elect” (and later “to the now President”), the FISA applications included several blacked-out sentences identified as FISA-acquired information.
The language and placement of these redactions suggest that the FISA surveillance captured communications between Page and members of the Trump transition team and administration.
Significantly, both the April 7, 2017 and the June 28, 2017, FISA renewal applications, after redacting “FISA-Acquired Information,” noted that “the FBI assesses that Page continues to have access to senior U.S. Government officials. Moreover, the FBI further assesses that Page is attempting to downplay his contacts with the Russian Government and to dispel the controversy surrounding him, so as to make him more viable as a foreign policy expert who will be in a position, due to his continued contacts with senior U.S. Government officials, to influence U.S. foreign policy towards Russia.”
These assertions raise significant questions and concerns. Who were these “senior U.S. Government officials”? Did the FBI intercept Page’s communications with Trump administration officials? And why would the FBI not provide President Trump a defensive briefing about Page and his supposed role as a Russian agent?
4. Rep. Adam Schiff Is a Rotten, No-Good, Two-Faced Liar
The latest declassifications also expose—yet again—that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) lied about everything in his “response memo” to Rep. Devin Nunes’s (R-Calif.) memo on FISA abuse. The lawyer who tweets anonymously as Undercover Huber detailed the evidence in a must-read thread on Friday.
“DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page—but made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meeting in Moscow with Russian officials,” Schiff had claimed.
Not so, as “Undercover Huber” detailed. Rather, the FISA applications stated that “[Carter] Page…has been identified by source reporting as an intermediary with Russian leadership” in “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” to influence the 2016 election. And that language was lifted directly from the Steele dossier.
Schiff knew this. He also knew that with dueling memorandums, the press would 100 percent back the Democrat, and put Republican Nunes’s memorandum on FISA abuse down to politics.
Schiff was right. He just didn’t expect Trump to survive long enough for proof of his duplicity to come out. But luckily for Schiff, the press backs lying Democrats at the same rate.
5. FBI Relied Solely on Fake News to Support Portions of the FISA Applications
The additional FISA application declassifications reveal another disconcerting fact: The FBI relied completely on media reports that ended up being inaccurate to “assesses that, following Page’s meetings in Russia, Page helped influence [the Republican Party] and Trump’s campaign to alter their platforms to be more sympathetic to Russia.”
In the FISA applications, the FBI supported this “assessment” with summaries of the reporting by two “identified news organizations,” one a July 2016 article and the second an August 2016 article. While the FISA applications did not identify the articles, “one was apparently Josh Rogin’s Washington Post opinion article, which reported claims that Trump campaign members ‘worked behind the scenes to make sure [the GOP]’s platform would not call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces.’”
The second article was likely Michael Crowley’s Politico piece that “opined that while the reason for [Trump’s] shift [in Russian policy] was not clear, [Trump]’s more conciliatory words, which contradict [the GOP]’s official platform, follow [Trump]’s recent association with several people sympathetic to Russian influence in Ukraine, including foreign policy advisor Carter Page.”
With the additional declassifications, we now know that those news reports were the only “evidence” supporting the FBI’s assessment that Page influenced the Republican Party to “soften” the platform’s position on Russia. And the reporting was wrong—which is exactly why the FBI should never rely on a news report in a FISA application, much less rely solely on such reporting.
6. The Special Counsel Pushed Pathetic Intel Too
In May of 2017, Robert Mueller assumed leadership of the Russia collusion investigation, but nothing changed: The FBI continued to push nonsense to the FISA court. However, instead of presenting media reports as proof, the special counsel’s team pushed rumors.
Specifically, as the newly declassified FISA application dated June 28, 2017 reveals, the FBI informed the FISA court that it “believes it has obtained additional information consistent with the above-described reporting from Sub-Source that Page met with Sechin while Page was in Moscow in July 2016.”
The FBI then noted that in June 2017, agents had interviewed an individual whose name remains redacted. That individual told the FBI that he “recalled an instance where Page was picked-up in a chauffeured car and that it was rumored at that time that Page had met with Igor Sechin.” Yes, that’s right—rumor.
7. Oh, the Sweet Irony
The final take-away from the newly declassified portion of the FISA applications reveals just how tone-deaf and oblivious the FBI agents involved in Crossfire Hurricane were. In the final application, the FBI “notes that Pages continues to be active in meeting with media outlets . . . to refute claims of his involvement with Russian Government efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.”
“This approach is important,” the FBI posits, “because, from the Russian Government’s point-of-view, it continues to keep the controversy of the election in front of the American and world media, which has the effect of undermining the integrity of the U.S. electoral process and weakening the effectiveness of the current U.S. Administration” (emphasis added).
As the kids would say, “I can’t even.”
twitter:jimsciutto twitterde op donderdag 14-02-2019 om 15:42:12 New: Justice Department spokesperson says Rosenstein denies McCabe’s account of a discussion of invoking the 25th amendment as “inaccurate and factually incorrect.” Via @LauraAJarrett https://t.co/1B4qjbfX4A reageer retweet
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |