Showing posts with label Andrew McCabe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew McCabe. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: Rosenstein v. McCabe - The Battle Of The Wiretap

animation fun GIF by Kiszkiloszki
#maytheheavensfall
McCabe is challenging my Memo Man?

I like to call Rod "Memo Man" because of my memo tremors, but I digress.

Now, whatever shall Rod do considering the fact that he has been busy, busy, busy!

Rod knows stuff.

Matt knows lots of stuff, too.

Perhaps, Rod will #sayhisname.

FISA Wiretaps For Everyone!



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, July 5, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: Deripaska v. Mueller - Who Will #sayhisname First About Detroit?

Oleg the Ass v. Angry Bird Mueller
FUN FACT! OLEG THE ASS CAME IN THROUGH DETROIT

For those of you just joining us, I so affectionately call Oleg Deripaska, Oleg the Ass because I blame him for my front porch aluminum awning being stolen.

Actually, I call him Oleg the Ass for other reasons, but we shall await to see what happens on July 17th, 2019, when Mueller testifies in front of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in front of Jolly Jerry.

It would be a delightful scene in Judiciary if the grand jury sealed information in the redacted Mueller report was unsealed in a rash of indictments, right before Mueller's testimony.

What if Trump decided to stop obstructing justice and pulled that IG report from his back pocket before Judiciary hearings are held?

What if Trump pulled that IG report from his back pocket during House Judiciary hearings?

What if Putin pulled his back pocket report out in similar sequence before the hearings?

John Solomon will not speak upon anything dealing with Detroit, for he is under command, by whom, we shall see.

Oh, the possibilities of hor d'oeuvres and libations!

#perkiniscoiesucks

Russian oligarch's story could spell trouble for Team Mueller




Sometimes it is the quiet, elusive ones who come back to haunt you. And for ex-special prosecutor Robert Mueller, one of those might be a Russian billionaire named Oleg Deripaska.

The oligarch who once controlled Russia’s largest aluminum empire has been an international man of intrigue in the now-completed and disproven Trump collusion investigation.

Deripaska was a disaffected former business client of Donald Trump’s fallen campaign chairman Paul Manafort. He also was a legal research client of Trump-hating, Clinton-aiding British spy Christopher Steele. In his spare time, he was an occasional friendly cooperator with the FBI and its fired deputy director, Andrew McCabe.

And, at the height of the Russia collusion hysteria, Deripaska was sanctioned by the Trump administration to financially punish Russian President Vladimir Putin for his meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

With the Russia case, in which he had so many connections, now completed, Deripaska is breaking his silence. And what he has to say could impact Mueller’s July 17 testimony before Congress.

In a wide-ranging interview with me, Deripaska confirmed a story told to me more than a year ago by law enforcement sources: He was indeed interviewed by FBI agents in September 2016 during the early Russia probe, and he told them he strongly doubted the bureau’s theory that the Trump campaign, through Manafort, was colluding with Moscow to hijack the 2016 election.

“I told them straightforward, ‘Look, I am not a friend with him [Manafort]. Apparently not, because I started a court case [against him] six or nine months before … . But since I’m Russian I would be very surprised that anyone from Russia would try to approach him for any reason, and wouldn’t come and ask me my opinion,' ” he said, recounting exactly what he says he told the FBI agents that day.

“I told them straightforward, I just don’t believe that he would represent any Russian interest. And knowing what he’s doing on Ukraine for the last, what, seven or eight years.”

OK, so why should you care if a Russian denied Trump campaign collusion with Russia during the election?

First, Deripaska wasn’t just any Russian. He was closely aligned with Putin and had been helpful to the FBI as far back as 2009. So he had earned some trust with the agents.

Most importantly, Deripaska’s interview with the FBI reportedly was never provided by Team Mueller to Manafort’s lawyers, even though it was potential proof of innocence, according to Manafort defense lawyer Kevin Downing. Manafort, initially investigated for collusion, was convicted on tax and lobbying violations unrelated to the Russia case.

That omission opens a possible door for appeal for what is known as a Brady violation, for hiding exculpatory information from a defendant.

“Recent revelations by The Hill prove that the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) claim that they had a legitimate basis to include Paul Manafort in an investigation of potential collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government is false,” Downing told me. “The failure to disclose this information to Manafort, the courts, or the public reaffirms that the OSC did not have a legitimate basis to investigate Manafort, and may prove that the OSC had no legitimate basis to investigate potential collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government.”

Deripaska’s second relevance to Mueller’s congressional hearings has to do with a series of events that first gained him trust inside the FBI.

Deripaska confirmed a story I reported last year from FBI sources that he spent more than $20 million of his own money between 2009 and 2011 on a private rescue operation to free Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent captured in Iran in 2007 while on a CIA mission.

Deripaska confirmed he paid for the operation at the request of the FBI, which was then under Mueller’s direction. And he added that McCabe, then a rising FBI supervisor who was a former colleague of Levinson and later became a key figure in the Russia collusion probe, was one of those who asked him to help.

“I was approached, you know, by someone that he is under a lot of scrutiny now — McCabe,” Deripaska said. “He also said that it was important enough for all of them [FBI officials]. And I kind of trusted them.”

Deripaska said his privately funded rescue team came very close to a deal with the Iranian captors to secure Levinson’s release but he was told by his FBI handlers that the deal ran into difficulties at Hillary Clinton’s State Department and was scuttled. “I heard that some Russian ‘hand,’ or whatever you call people who are expert on the Russians at the State Department, [said], ‘We just don’t want to owe anything to this guy,’ ” Deripaska told me, adding that he never expected any U.S. favors for his personal efforts to free Levinson.

Asked if he thought the former FBI agent is alive, some dozen years later, Deripaska answered: “I don’t think so.” He pointed out that if Levinson had been alive, he likely would have come home in 2016, after the Obama administration struck a nuclear deal with Iran.

Deripaska said he is continuing to investigate what really happened at State with Levinson, as he tries to fight the sanctions levied against him in 2018. His company, Rusal, has been removed from the sanctions list.

Deripaska’s tale has the potential to raise questions about a conflict of interest, since Mueller’s FBI first received a gift in the form of the privately funded rescue mission before Mueller, as special prosecutor, investigated Deripaska’s ties to key figures in the Russia case.

And Deripaska’s complicated tale goes on: His legal team in 2012 hired Steele, the former British MI6 agent, to do some research for a lawsuit involving a business rival that Deripaska was fighting in London: “It was a research project to support what was the case against me in London. But my understanding is that the lawyers trusted him for some reason, and he was for quite a time on retainer.”

Deripaska was unaware, though, that Steele also was working for the FBI on, among other things, a special program to recruit Russian oligarchs to provide intelligence on Putin and Russian organized crime.

He told me that Steele invited him to a September 2015 meeting with some Justice Department officials, under the guise that they might be able to help with the Russian’s long-running battle with State to get visas to visit the U.S. He said the offer to help with his visa problem was a “pretext” to recruit him.

“They actually never talk, you know, about the [visa] problem. They start talking about anything else. They ask, ‘Do you have anything? Give me names. Cases, whatever,’ ” Deripaska recalled.

He said he later was shocked to learn that Steele eventually went to work for the Clinton campaign through Fusion GPS, and the FBI, and spread allegations of the now-disproven Russia-Trump collusion.

Deripaska’s willingness to do an American interview at this moment undoubtedly has a motive. It’s likely rooted in an American charm offensive, as he sues not only to reverse the sanctions that Trump imposed on him but to challenge the State Department’s 15-year effort to keep him from getting normal visas.

He recently won a lawsuit and forced State to produce the so-called evidence it used to justify denying him a visa for years and imposing the sanctions. It was a thinly sourced file, he said, mostly of old newspaper articles with no real secret intelligence.

So I asked him about the most common allegation levied by his detractors at State — that, earlier in his life while consolidating power in the aluminum industry, he had ties to Russian mobsters and may have killed or encouraged killing critics.

He quickly responded, noting that the file released by the courts offered no such direct proof: “There is no evidence. What is there to dispute? Do you believe that I could kill someone 25 years ago and there will be no victims, no corpses, no names?”

Throughout the interview, it was clear Deripaska chose his words in English carefully. But there was one word he offered only twice — once in response to the Steele dossier’s allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, and the other time to respond to the allegations used to sanction him. “Balderdash,” he insisted.

Now it’s time for Team Mueller to answer the same questions.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

All Hail The Whistleblowers: George Webb March 2019 Summary - Part Two - Mueller Marries Brennan - More Transposable Models

Still no mention of the child welfare industry transposable models but you can follow the attempts to get media to pick up the story before the legal tsunami unleashes because they will have no place else to turn for original source material.

This is how you stop propaganda.

All hail the whistleblowers.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, March 8, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: JUDICIARY - Doug Collins Drops DOJ Bruce Ohr Transcript, All By Himself

HIGHLIGHTS:
  • Manafort stole from Deripaska back in the day;
  • Ohr had no chain of command of evidence when dealing with the thumbdrive;
  • Ohr had no clue where the thumbdrive passed to him came from;
  • Ohr did not know what was on the thumbdrives he was passing to his FBI handler;
  • Andrew Weissman may be anOSC whistleblower;
  • Was Steele lobbying for Deripaska?;
  • Is there a second dossier?;
  • Ohr used WhatsApp to chat? <===Seriously???? ;
  • Ohr was the overseas face of the DOJ Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force ;
  • (obviously, he did not do a very good job.)
  • Daniel Jones, a former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staffer, works for, or is the founder of a group called Penn Quarter Group  that raised approximately $50 million from Democratic donors to continue the Fusion GPS investigation.
Mr. Jordan. Were you aware of the money trail, the fact that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Perkins Coie, the law firm who then had paid Fusion, who were then paying Christopher Steele, were you aware of that? Mr. Ohr. I don't believe I was aware of that at the time. p185

Who is Kathleen Kavalec?
http://russiancouncil.ru/en/news/russia-u-s-relations-discussed-at-the-
meeting-with-kathleen-kavalec-deputy-assistant-secretary-depar/
Kathleen Ann Kavalec of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Albania. 
Ms. Kavalec currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs at the Department of State with over three decades of experience as an American diplomat. Previously, she served as the Director of the Office of Russian Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Mission to UNESCO in Paris, France, Deputy Coordinator for Assistance in the European Bureau, and Director for Conflict Prevention in the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. Ms. Kavalec earned her A.B. from the University of California at Berkeley and M.S. from Georgetown University.  She speaks French, Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese fluently.

Interesting partisan line of questioning if you are trying to find out if you or your crew is part of the second dossier, but, hey, what do I know?

I know that I had better make sure I have cocktails and popcorn stocked up for everyone when they get to Detroit!

Q -- I think you said earlier that you became aware, or Mrs. Ohr became aware that her research was intended to be about Russia and, you know, about the potential ties between the campaign and Russia. Is that correct?
A Yes. At some point, yes.
Q Okay. Are you aware of any efforts by Fusion GPS to conduct sort of research about other politicians?
A No.
Q I'm --
A I mean, I know Fusion GPS did research on different topics, so I don't specifically know of research on other politicians.
Q Okay. For example, anyone who may have been in this room today --
A No. Q -- or -- okay. A Not aware of anything like that.
Q Senator Grassley?
A No, not --
Q Devin Nunes?
A No, not that I'm aware of, no.
Q Okay. Bob Goodlatte?
A No. Again, not aware of any Fusion GPS research on other Senators, Congressmen, other officials.  

IN SURPRISE MOVE, HOUSE REPUBLICAN RELEASES BRUCE OHR TRANSCRIPT

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins unilaterally released a 268-page transcript Friday of a deposition that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr gave to Congress in August.

Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, took the unusual step by reading a statement on the House floor and providing a link to the Ohr transcript in the public record. The representative said his patience with the Justice Department “has grown thin.”

Ohr served in 2016 and 2017 as a back channel between the FBI and Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the anti-Trump dossier alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

(RELATED: Bruce Ohr’s Testimony Contradicts Glenn Simpson’s)

Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked as a contractor for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele.

Bruce Ohr was interviewed on Aug. 28, 2018 by a task force of members from the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees.

Collins said Friday that he plans to release additional transcripts from interviews conducted by the task force. Lawmakers have also interviewed Nellie Ohr and FBI and Justice Department officials such as former FBI general counsel James Baker and former FBI attorney Lisa Page.“Out of an abundance of caution, we gave DOJ an opportunity to review them for information that would endanger national security, but after many months and little progress, our patience has grown thin,” Collins said.

“The proposed redactions have nothing to do with national security and are anathema to our goal of government transparency,” he continued, adding that “I am, therefore, today making one of these transcripts public.”

“I intend to make other transcripts public soon,” he said. “I’m willing to consider any reasonable redactions DOJ makes in a timely manner, but won’t allow these transcripts to remain shrouded in secrecy.”

Parts of Bruce Ohr’s testimony have already been leaked to the press. In the hearing, Bruce Ohr undercut several claims made by Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, and California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bruce Ohr testified that he met with Simpson on Aug. 22, 2016 to discuss information from the dossier. That contradicted Simpson’s testimony to House Intelligence on Nov. 14, 2017 that he did not meet with Bruce Ohr until after the election.

Bruce Ohr also told lawmakers that he told the FBI about his contacts with Steele in early August 2016, days after he and Nellie Ohr met the former British spy in Washington, D.C.

Schiff claimed in a memo released on Feb. 24, 2018 that Bruce Ohr did not tell the FBI about his contacts with Steele until after the election.

Ohr testified that he generally trusted Steele, who he first met in 2007, when Steele still worked for the British government. But Ohr had less confidence in Steele’s sources, since their information originated with Russians.

“I think — my impression is that Chris Steele believed his sources,” Ohr said in one exchange.

“What I should say in addition, though, is that whenever you are dealing with information from Russia, you have to be careful, because it is a very complicated place. And so even information from a good source has to be looked at carefully.”
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Cocktails & Popcorn: Day 21.1 Yet Another McCabe Mafia Character Brought In The Russia Drama



It was July 2015, and Maria Butina wanted to know what Trump, then a month into his unlikely campaign for the White House, planned to do about US relations with her country. Trump had good news.

“I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin,” he said.

Butina, then 27, was asked on the sidelines of the event why she had travelled all the way to Nevada for a gathering of libertarians and conservatives. “I would like to know more, and to bring this knowledge to Russia,” she said casually. “I hope it will be useful for my country.”

According to US prosecutors, Butina’s patriotic curiosity had by then developed into the beginnings of a criminal conspiracy.

Butina was arrested last weekend and appeared in court in Washington on Monday, charged with operating as a secret agent for the Kremlin. She is accused of working to infiltrate the National Rifle Association (NRA) in an attempt to influence the Republican party and, ultimately, the US government.

An FBI agent who investigated Butina said in a court filing she tried to develop secret back channels with American politicians that could “penetrate the US national decision-making apparatus to advance the agenda of the Russian federation”.

Butina denies any wrongdoing. Her attorney, Robert Driscoll, said she was a legitimate college graduate and aspiring businesswoman who happened to be Russian. She “intends to defend her rights vigorously and looks forward to clearing her name”, he said.

The charges open a new front in the justice department’s effort to counter Russian disruption of US politics, and signal that American associates of Butina may be seriously imperilled. They also threaten to conclude Butina’s short adventure in Washington with up to five years in a federal prison.
As she worked her way into some of American conservatism’s most rarefied circles, Butina had a compelling and simple pitch: she was building Russia’s equivalent of the NRA.

She spent years cultivating relationships with Republican operatives, gun rights activists and religious leaders. She took photographs with Republican presidential candidates and helped bring NRA officials to Moscow.

In the grey-haired, male-dominated world of conservative conferences, Butina stood out. She was young, tall and flirtatious, according to two gun rights activists who knew her. In 2014, she was the subject of a flattering profile in Russian GQ, accompanied by a photoshoot of her posing with pistols in Dolce & Gabbana underwear.

Butina has said she was raised in Siberia, where her father introduced her to guns and taught her to shoot. After college, she said, she founded a chain of furniture stores. Then she moved to Moscow, where she said she ran an advertising company. In a 2012 profile, she described founding a group called The Right to Bear Arms some time around 2011. She also took the American journalist profiling her to shoot guns “at a former KGB range”.

Butina clearly knew how to handle firearms: she was comfortable and competent around guns. But other aspects of her résumé did not seem to add up, one activist said. When asked for basic official documents for her Russian gun rights group, the activist said, Butina could not produce any.

Alan Gottlieb and Julianne Versnel, husband-and-wife gun rights activists, said they had an intimate dinner with Butina and Alexander Torshin, her longtime mentor, during a Right to Bear Arms conference in Moscow in 2013. Torshin, a senior official at Russia’s central bank, is now accused by US prosecutors of directing Butina’s operations.

Gottlieb, founder of the Washington-state based Second Amendment Foundation, said Butina always seemed laser-focused on gun policy. Still, she was an unusual character: assertive, even aggressive and determined to make herself the centre of attention.

“She did not behave in what I considered an entirely professional manner,” Versnel said. “She had an extra button or three unbuttoned.”

Her husband added: “She knew how to use her youth and beauty to make sure that she was engaged in conversation.”

Butina began cultivating American contacts. In 2013, John Bolton, now Trump’s national security adviser, appeared in a Russian gun rights videothat Right to Bear Arms used for pro-gun lobbying in Russia. Bolton was reportedly asked to appear in the video by David Keene, a recent president of the NRA, who had become acquainted with Torshin.

In April 2014, Butina flew to Indianapolis for the NRA convention. She posted photographs to the Russian social network VK showing that she mixed with Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s pugnacious vice-president, along with heavyweight Republicans including Bobby Jindal, then governor of Louisiana, and Rick Santorum, a former US senator and presidential candidate.

That September, Butina invited Paul Erickson, a conservative political operative and veteran NRA member based in South Dakota, to address her gun rights group in Moscow. Six months later, according to US officials, she emailed an American political operative who appears to be Erickson to set out what she called project “Diplomacy”. Erickson did not respond to messages this week.

The subject line of Butina’s email, sent on 24 March 2015, appeared to liken her to a notorious KGB propagandist during the cold war. In the text, she declared that the Republican party, in the prosecutors’ words, “would likely obtain control over the US government after the 2016 elections”.

The disclosure this week raised an obvious question: what, at a time when most national opinion polling indicated an advantage for Hillary Clinton over her potential Republican rivals, had convinced Butina that the GOP would be triumphant in an election still 20 months away?

Saying that she wanted to build more constructive relations with the traditionally hawkish Republicans, Butina noted the NRA’s “central place and influence” in the party. She said she needed a $125,000 budget to fund her participation in GOP conferences. The American political operative provided her with a list of “important contacts” to meet.

A few weeks later, Butina was back in the US for the NRA’s 2015 convention. Held in Nashville, Tennessee, it again gave her access to the most in-demand figures in the conservative movement. She and Torshin chatted with Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, who posed for a photograph with her and spoke a few phrases in Russian. In July, Butina attended the launch of Walker’s presidential campaign.

The Kremlin seems to have been interested. Court filings said Butina wrote Torshin a memo about a political campaign event that detailed her “private meeting” with the same candidate at the NRA convention. Walker was not identified by name. Then came Butina’s encounter with Trump at the Freedom Fest event in Las Vegas.

Late that year, Butina’s gun rights group paid to fly NRA allies to Moscow for a visit that included lavish dinners and a meeting with Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister. Her guests included Erickson, Keene and David Clarke, the former sheriff of Milwaukee, who would go on to support Trump’s presidential campaign.

Pete Brownell, a gun company chief executive who also took part in the 2015 Moscow trip, became NRA president in 2017. In May this year, his tenure ended abruptly and earlier than expected. Representatives did not respond to questions about whether his departure was connected to the Russia trip.

The NRA and Clarke did not respond to requests for comment. A person who answered the phone at a number listed under Keene’s name said on Monday he was “out fishing” and was not expected back until the end of the month.

As the 2016 campaign intensified, and the likelihood of Trump’s Republican primary victory became clear, Butina began honing her activities and trying to gain access to the candidate and his circle, according to US officials.

During that election year, she obtained a student visa and enrolled in an international relations graduate program at American University in Washington. But her networking continued.
Butina told a second American associate, also unidentified in the charging documents, that a Kremlin official had endorsed her efforts to establish a back channel to US politicians. She wrote: “All we needed is <<yes>> from Putin’s side. The rest is easier.”

Court filings describe extensive efforts by Butina and Torshin over the following months to arrange a series of “friendship and dialogue dinners” in Washington and New York. They reportedly used American go-betweens to make an apparently unsuccessful approach to senior members of Trump’s campaign with a “backdoor overture” on behalf of Vladimir Putin’s government.

They tried to get access to Trump himself in May 2016, but had to make do with his son. The Trump Organization confirmed that Donald Jr met Torshin during the NRA convention in Louisville, Kentucky, but tried to downplay the significance of their discussion.

Alan Futerfas, an attorney for the Trump company, told CBS the two men were introduced and “made small talk for a few minutes” before dining separately. Futerfas has also said the discussion was “all gun-related”. The New York Times reported on Monday that Butina was present at this meeting and that congressional investigators have obtained a photograph of the three together.

According to the FBI, when guns didn’t bring her to Trump, Butina tried again with God. An investigator described in court filings a series of contacts between Butina and an organiser for the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. Butina and Torshin attended in February 2016.

(Torshin and Butina came even closer to a meeting with the president at the following year’s Prayer Breakfast. Shortly before the scheduled encounter, a White House aide flagged Torshin’s “baggage” and cancelled the meet and greets, Yahoo News reported.)

By 4 October 2016, with just a month to go before polling day, Butina’s first American associate – apparently Erickson – emailed a contact to say that he had “been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin” and Republican leaders.

The next day, Butina and Torshin exchanged a series of cryptic Twitter messages reflecting on their efforts, according to prosecutors. When Torshin asked about the status of the “Russia-USA friendship society”, Butina replied “we are currently ‘underground’ both here and there” and signalled a need to avoid publicity.

“Time will tell,” Butina wrote. “We made our bet.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, July 12, 2018

JUDICIARY: Statement of Ranking Member Nadler for the Hearing on “Oversight of FBI and DOJ Actions Surrounding the 2016 Election: Testimony by FBI Deputy Director Peter Strzok”



Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered the following opening remarks during a Judiciary Committee hearing on “Oversight of FBI and DOJ Actions Surrounding the 2016 Election: Testimony by FBI Deputy Director Peter Strzok.”

“Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this Congress, when my Democratic colleagues and I asked you to hold hearings about the Russian government’s campaign to undermine our last election, you offered a variety of excuses:

“We could not look into President Trump’s overt attempts to obstruct the early stages of the Russia investigation because, you said, “[t]here are other committees that have jurisdiction over parts of this.”

“You were also reluctant to interfere with the Special Counsel:  “Until Mr. Mueller’s investigation is complete, it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues.” 

“You also insisted that the House Judiciary Committee would never intrude on an active criminal investigation—claiming, perhaps erroneously, that the Majority never questioned the FBI about the Clinton investigation while that investigation was still ongoing.

“Mr. Chairman, this joint investigation is now so far afield from your original statements that it can be difficult to discern what we are investigating at all. You initially described this inquiry as an “investigation regarding charging decisions in the investigation surrounding Secretary Clinton’s email server in 2016.”

“Just a few days ago, over the course of an 11-hour interview, Republicans asked Mr. Strzok more than 200 questions about the Special Counsel’s investigation, more than 30 questions about Mr. Strzok’s personal interactions with the Special Counsel, and 25 questions about the FBI’s use of confidential human sources to determine whom at the Trump campaign might have been compromised by a foreign government.

“Are we no longer going to wait until Special Counsel Mueller concludes his work, Mr. Chairman? Or perhaps the rules of this joint investigation, such as they are, operate differently now that we are approaching the midterm elections and Special Counsel Mueller is closing in on the President’s close associates.

“In the Majority’s view, it seems, our job is to ask questions about the internal workings of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and to demand documents that lay out his strategy—but not to make any attempt to understand how the Russian government influenced our last election, or any effort to protect our next election from an attack by a foreign adversary.

“In the Majority’s view, it is more important to quiz Mr. Strzok about the FBI’s use of confidential human sources—in some wild attempt to prove President Trump’s baseless claim that a “spy” was planted inside his campaign—than it is to learn about the impact of exposing the identity of these sources while they are still working undercover.  My Republicans colleagues appear to have revealed at least one such source already.

“In the Majority’s view, the text messages exchanged between Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page are a higher priority for us than President Trump’s request that James Comey end the investigation into Michael Flynn, or his decision to fire Director Comey “because of that Russia thing with Trump and Russia,” or his repeated attempts to fire Special Counsel Mueller directly.

“In the Majority’s view, we do not have time to conduct oversight on almost any national security issue—but we have hours on end to discuss Mr. Strzok’s extramarital affair. Which brings me to my next point:  I have come to expect that President Trump will tweet abhorrent things about decent people, but I demand better behavior from my colleagues.

“Mr. Strzok volunteered to be here today, just as he volunteered to appear two weeks ago for an 11-hour interview.  You don’t have to like him, but you have to treat him—and any witness before this Committee—with respect. Questions like “do you love Lisa Page” and “who did you vote for in the last election”—questions that Republicans posed in his interview—are not relevant to any aspect of our official business.

“I would say the same of the Majority’s treatment of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on June 29—which was, at best, uncivil—and of the Committee’s treatment of Lisa Page—which has been unfair to say the least.

“Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that Ms. Page must eventually comply with a duly issued subpoena.  But it is beneath your office to suggest, as you did this week, that her decision not to appear for a deposition means “she has something to hide.”  It is beneath our Committee to call her “pathetic,” as Mr. DeSantis did.  It has nothing to do with “the Swamp,” as Mr. Jordan suggested.

“Can we not be decent to our witnesses, Mr. Chairman?  Must Republicans descend to the President’s level, even in his defense?

“I know that the Majority wants a public fight with Mr. Strzok today.  I expect that you will ask him questions about the Special Counsel’s investigation that you know the FBI will not permit him to answer—as you did more than 200 times in our last meeting with Mr. Strzok—so that his decision not to answer can be played out on cable news again and again.

“And I expect that Mr. Strzok walked into this room knowing that Republicans may soon call for him to be held in contempt for following the longstanding policy of the Department of Justice.  FBI agents like Mr. Strzok should not comment on, or even acknowledge the existence of, an ongoing criminal investigation. 

“A single decision to deviate from that protocol can cause lasting damage to our republic—as anyone who has read the Inspector General’s report, and his conclusions about Mr. Comey, must acknowledge. When we reach that impasse, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will think back to the statements you made about interference with the Special Counsel earlier this Congress, and consider the consequences of our words and actions here today.

“The Majority keeps telling us, over and over again, that there was bias in the Clinton investigation, bias in the Russia investigation, and that bias must never again affect an investigation at the Department of Justice.

“The rules that prevent Mr. Strzok from answering today are designed to accomplish precisely that, Mr. Chairman—to prevent Congress and the public from injecting bias and politics into the Special Counsel’s investigation, or any other investigation. 

“When the Special Counsel’s job is done, I invite you to join me in examining his findings.  Until then, Mr. Chairman, please treat our guests with common courtesy, and leave the Special Counsel alone.  I yield back.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

JUDICIARY: Senate Hearing On "Examining the Inspector General's First Report on Justice Department and FBI Actions in Advance of the 2016 Presidential Election" June 18, 2018

It seems, the underlying tone of the hearing was about smearing people during a campaign cycle.

What is interesting is the fact that the campaign cycle for the U.S. House of Representatives is perpetual as that the term of office is only two years, so when do you draw the line on the right to smear a candidate?

Never.

In this particular hearing, smearing was done with taxpayer dollars, using federal resources of the executive and congress, and dare I also include judicial resources, through campaign activities that were taking place during the course of governmental business.

I know someone who was smeared in the same fashion as Trump.

And never forget, Perkins Coie Sucks.


The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing entitled: “Examining the Inspector General’s First Report on Justice Department and FBI Actions in Advance of the 2016 Presidential Election" scheduled for Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building will now be held on Monday, June 18, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.



Thursday, June 14, 2018

Cocktails ̃̃& Popcorn: DOJ OIG Review Of FBI & DOJ Before 2016 Election For John Huber & Friends

Image result for popcorn beer and movies
"Who do you think Huber's friends are?"
"I am going to go with my Meanie litmus test results."
"What is that?"
"Oh, simple. 'I just ask myself if you were you mean
to my Sweeite. If I answer yes, then you suck and are
not a friend of Huber."
Everyone keeps forgetting and I keep getting sick of telling everyone that this is an Inspector General report that is working in direct conjunction with the Special Prosecutor, John Huber.

The IG is only functioning as the investigative, information gathering and evidence preservation for the other side.

The other side is the John Huber & Friends.

This is just the first reveal of the legal process so everyone is just going to have to wait for the show.

Buy more popcorn.



The pdf was locked, oddly enough, but I am glad for it being done in this instance, considering there are some really special people out there who like to engage in extremely artistic renderings of what is actually going on.

A great way to stop a fraudulent reconstruction of the investigation with a falsely constructed narrative I like to call propaganda.


I wonder if the report has been encrypted.

That would be hot.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

JUDICIARY: Goodlatte Anticipates A "Very Thorough" OIG Report With Horowitz & Huber

How come no one is talking about John Huber.

Saddy face.

Huber is working with Horowitz, you know.


Key GOP chairman anticipates 'very thorough' IG report will shed light on 'unbelievable bias' in DOJ, FBI

A top Republican in the House is eagerly awaiting for the Justice Department watchdog to confirm his belief that laws were broken by employees of the DOJ and FBI.
With the release of the highly-anticipated inspector general report from Michael Horowitz about the DOJ and FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server coming on June 14, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte said Sunday he expects it to be "very thorough."
The Virginia Republican emphasized on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo" that the report will "shed a lot of light" on the "unbelievable bias" demonstrated by leaders in the nation's top in the nation's premier law enforcement organization in handling the Clinton investigation versus the investigation looking into whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Asked if he believed laws were broken, Goodlatte answered in the affirmative.
"I do believe laws have been broken," he said, citing former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who in a DOJ IG report in April was found to have “lacked candor” on four separate occasions, three of which were while he was under oath. The IG sent a criminal referral about McCabe to federal prosecutor in D.C. based on the findings in its report.
Goodlatte expressed his hope that the forthcoming IG report will uncover more details about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI officials who came under fire after it was revealed they exchanged text messages critical of President Trump -- a matter which the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees have examined. Both Strzok and Page were part of the Clinton emails investigation and later were assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.
The report "may make it clear whether of not criminal laws have been violated," Goodlatte said.
Goodlatte stressed that there already have been some examples of accountability put into action, demonstrated by the removal of McCabe and ex-Director James Comey from the FBI. Further action, he said, will be in the hands of U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was been appointed by FBI Director Chris Wray to investigate GOP claims of FBI misconduct.
"He does have prosecutorial authority," Goodlatte said of Huber, adding that "the Inspector general can make referrals for prosecutions. So, if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing ... we will see that happen."
Following the release of the IG report, the House Judiciary and Oversight committees will hold a joint hearing on “Oversight of the FBI and DOJ Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election" on June 19, the testimony in whcih Goodlatte said will be split into classified and public settings. Horowitz is expected to testify a day earlier on his report before the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, May 31, 2018

FBI Text Messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

FBI Strzok & Page Did Not Get The Detroit Text Message

Previously lost Peter Strzok, Lisa Page texts leaked to media

A pivotal array of previously missing text message exchanges between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two FBI officials who in their conversations displayed a bias against President Trump, sent to Congress with redactions this week have been leaked to the media.

Hours after five congressional committees received the recovered text messages, the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained them and subsequently published them.

These text messages were exchanged between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 17, 2017, a critical time period that stretches from the presidential transition period to the first several months of the Trump administration, during which former national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned under pressure and former FBI Director James Comey was fired.

As with any text messages examined out of context, the true meaning of what Strzok and Page were saying remains unclear.

In these newly revealed texts they did appear dismayed when Trump fired Comey in May of 2017.
“Having a tough time processing tonight, Lis. Feeling a profound sense of loss,” Strzok wroteseveral days after Comey was terminated.

“I feel that same loss,” Page said in response. “I want to see what the FBI could become under him! His vision of greatness for our strong but flawed organization. I’m angry. Angry and mourning.”
Texts between the pair, who were having an extramarital affair, that have already been made public have contained laudatory words for Comey.

Strzok and Page also praised Comey in one conversation after his July 2016 appearance before Congress explaining why FBI did not recommend any criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. Page lauded his public speaking skills and commended Comey for having a “brilliant distillation of fact.”

Comey, in the middle of a book tour, was asked to comment about Strzok and Page during an interview Thursday on Fox News. He told Bret Baier that he never witnessed any evidence of bias from Strzok and Page while working with them, but he was "deeply disappointed in them" when he read some of the texts.

Comey also cautioned against attempts to decipher the meaning of the texts without context.
Meanwhile, texts that have already surfaced have appeared to be highly critical of Trump, including Page calling Trump an "idiot" and "a douche." Strzok replied to another, saying "F Trump.”

The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General disclosed the new cache of texts with House and Senate lawmakers this week after advising Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., they had been recovered in January after they had gone missing due to a technical glitch in the FBI-issued cellphones.

Congressional investigators are looking into whether the FBI was biased in the way it conducted its investigations into President Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
FBI agents Strzok and Page briefly worked for special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

PS LP Text Messages Dec 2016 May 2017 by Peter Hasson on Scribd Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

DOJ: Horowitz Report Is Out For "Their Eyes Only"

What a lovely day to memorialize in the annals of history.

Happy Birthday, Sweetie.

Report on DOJ’s Handling of Clinton Email Probe Nears Release

Michael Horowitz, inspector general, Justice Department, in a July 2017 hearing before a Senate committee.Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department’s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week’s end, signaling t he long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, in a familiar place—taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks.

Mr. Horowitz told lawmakers last month he expected to issue the report in May, but Tuesday’s notification is the first indication that Mr. Horowitz has largely completed his inquiry. Congressional committees are expected to review the report in coming weeks.
Mr. Horowitz’s office issued a related report last month, which laid the groundwork for the firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, finding that he misled investigators probing his role in providing information to a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Mr. McCabe disputed the allegations, which have been referred to the Washington U.S. attorney’s office to determine whether he should be charged with a crime.

The inspector general’s yearlong review is expected to yield sharp criticism of actions by several top officials, including former FBI Director James Comey’s announcement in July 2016 that Mrs. Clinton had been reckless with the nation’s secrets but he was recommending against prosecuting her.

The report is also expected to scrutinize whether Mr. McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton investigation, since his wife’s campaign for the Virginia legislature was aided by then- Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally. And it is likely to criticize the numerous texts exchanged by two FBI employees critical of President Donald Trump and others.

Beyond that, the document’s release will shine an unusual spotlight on Mr. Horowitz, the Justice Department’s in-house watchdog since 2011.

Inspectors general, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, don’t automatically change with administrations, a way of maintaining their independence. Their probes often involve interviews with dozens of witnesses and can produce reports months or even years after a problem comes to light.

In January 2017, Mr. Horowitz announced a review of Mr. Comey’s public statements on the Clinton investigation and related matters. Since then, officials have been bracing for his report, which has occasionally been in the news, such as when he released the related report on Mr. McCabe last month.

The McCabe report drew the ire of one of Mr. Horowitz’s predecessors, Michael Bromwich, an attorney who now represents Mr. McCabe and who said he had evidence that contradicted the initial report’s findings.

No stranger to antagonizing his colleagues, Mr. Horowitz spent several years as chief of the public-corruption unit in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office in the 1990s. In that role he helped prosecute more than a dozen police officers from New York’s 30th Precinct who were accused of stealing money and drugs from criminal suspects and reselling the drugs.

He authorized the arrest of the officers just as a colleague was planning to use them as witnesses in a major drug case.

“It not only involved proceeding against law enforcement, which is your day-to-day partner in fighting crime...it also had negative impacts on other cases in the office, and needed to be handled with skill, sensitivity and all those things Michael has,” said Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney and Mr. Horowitz’s boss at the time.

Mr. Horowitz also served as an official at Justice Department headquarters in Washington and spent a decade in private practice before being nominated by then-President Barack Obama to the inspector general post.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Horowitz cited the police corruption case and another prosecution involving the Teamsters that also disrupted colleagues’ work, saying they showed he could maintain his independence from people he had worked with for many years.

“I wasn’t interested in winning popularity contests as the head of the corruption unit,” he said. “I was instructed by the U.S. attorney to doggedly pursue corruption, to be independent of the other units in the office, and that’s precisely what I did.”

At that hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) pressed Mr. Horowitz on whether he could be impartial toward the then-head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Lanny Breuer, whom Mr. Horowitz had publicly supported. Mr. Horowitz said he would pursue “every avenue in that case, no matter who’s involved.”

Several months later, Mr. Horowitz’s office released a report on the botched “Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking operation, in which officials lost track of guns sold to suspected smugglers. The report faulted Mr. Breuer for not promptly informing superiors about a similar operation he had learned of in 2010.

Some Obama Justice Department officials criticized that report as applying simplistic hindsight to complex episodes during which the proper course of action wasn’t always clear.

Officials generally say they expect Mr. Horowitz to reach good faith conclusions in the coming report. “Horowitz is open-minded and fair,” said Matthew Miller, who ran the Justice Department’s public affairs office when the “Fast and Furious” operation first became public.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, May 7, 2018

Day 201.3. At Least Five Trump Associates Under Surveillance In Summer Campaign

They eat each other alive.

Campaign 2016: Spy v. Spy



Israel intel firm denies it was hired by Trump aides to discredit Obama officials

Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube has denied it was hired by Donald Trump’s aides to dig up damaging information on former officials close to Barack Obama who worked on the Iran nuclear deal.

The denial follows allegations, first reported by Observer, that people close to Trump had contacted private investigators a year ago to carry out a “dirty ops” campaign against key Obama administration figures who helped negotiate the Iran agreement.

“Referencing Black Cube has become an international sport during 2018,” the company said in a statement on Monday. “Black Cube has no relation whatsoever to the Trump administration, to Trump aides, to anyone close to the administration, or to the Iran nuclear deal.”

Ben Rhodes, one of Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, were the targets in the attempt to discredit the deal, the Observer reported. Trump has long denounced what he calls “the worst deal ever” and threatened to scrap the 2015 agreement by a 12 May deadline.

Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who refers to Tehran as a “terrorist regime”, has also been a vocal opponent, arguing the deal should be “fully fixed or fully nixed”.

The Observer article did not name the firm or say how much work was undertaken. However, following publication, Kahl said on Twitter there was “considerable evidence” that a person working for Black Cube had approached his wife last May.

“The fact that I even have to think about the possibility that my family was targeted by people working for the president is yet another sign of the fundamental degradation of our country that Trump has produced,” he said.

On Sunday, the New Yorker reported Rhodes’s wife, Ann Norris, was also contacted by a woman who said she intended to make a documentary on officials regarding topics including “nuclear negotiations with a hostile nation”.

Norris, a former state department official, was cited in the magazine as saying she never responded to the request, which the New Yorker claimed was an undercover Black Cube campaign.

The magazine cited documents related to the operation showing “Black Cube compiled detailed background profiles of several individuals, including Rhodes and Kahl, that featured their addresses, information on their family members and even the makes of their cars”.

The Guardian could not independently verify the claims against the Tel Aviv-based company made by Kahl and the New Yorker.

A source close to Black Cube said the investigation in question was not political but linked to one of its private sector clients, in relation to an alleged breach of Iran sanctions by a competitor.

Black Cube, which says it is staffed by “veterans from the Israeli elite intelligence units”, apologised in November after it was reported that the firm had helped Harvey Weinstein gather information on women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 201.2 Did Victor Vector Vixens Through Trump Hotel EB5s?



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

JUDICIARY: Goodlatte: Allegations of Political Pressure to Shutter Clinton Foundation Probe Must Be Investigated


Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today called for an investigation into allegations that the Obama Justice Department pressured the FBI to shut down its Clinton Foundation probe during the 2016 presidential election.

A recent report issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General contained disturbing information that the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, who is the top staff person in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and advises on all major investigations and policy matters, called former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to express displeasure that FBI agents were pursuing a probe into the Clinton Foundation during the election season. The Deputy Attorney General at the time was Sally Yates, who was appointed to her post by President Obama.

In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Chairman Goodlatte calls for the Justice Department to investigate allegations that senior officials at the Obama Justice Department sought to hamper the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation and to hold any wrongdoers accountable.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©