• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Crooked Hillary Backed by Crooked FBI during 2016 Presidential Election

Commentary: For Trump supporters, DOJ IG report amounts to “Told ya so”

by Michael Graham at CBS News:

The new Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email scandal is 568 pages long, but for Trump supporters it can be reduced to a single phrase:

“Told ya so.”

For months, Team Trump has claimed that the Department of Justice under Barack Obama was motivated by politics when it came to investigating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  And while some on the Right have stretched that premise out to the “Deep State Conspirators Use UFO Tech To Erase DOJ Data” extreme, the IG report makes it clear that the Loretta Lynch/James Comey/Andrew McCabe DOJ and FBI were far too often motivated by crass partisanship rather than the pursuit of justice.

The report called the actions of two officials “antithetical to the core values” of the FBI and DOJ in this excerpt:

When one senior FBI official, (Peter) Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, (Lisa) Page, that ‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected — after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump — it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects [emphasis added]. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

There was also this exchange between FBI employees supposedly practicing impartial law enforcement:

10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: “I am so stressed about what I could have done differently [regarding Clinton investigation].”
10:54:29, FBI Employee: “Don’t stress. None of that mattered.”
10:54:31, FBI Employee: “The FBI’s influence.”
10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: “I don’t know. We broke the momentum.”
11:00:03, FBI Employee: “That is not so.”
11:02:22, FBI Employee: “All the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out. Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing [emphasis added]They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.”

It goes downhill from there.

Opponents of the president and many in the mainstream media have largely dismissed this notion of an FBI corrupted by partisanship. Much of the media coverage has focused, not on the bad behavior by James Comey, but instead on Trump’s (often over-the-top) criticisms of the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Counsel Rober Mueller.

And that in itself is additional proof of the Trump-supporters’ primary premise that the institutions they are told they should trust—government, media, academia—are no longer trustworthy. Otherwise, how could they ignore such a juicy tale of corruption and scandal?

Start at the beginning: Hillary Clinton, with her history of problematic ethics, becomes secretary of state and, during her tenure, her family simultaneously ran an international foundation that collected hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments and businesses. As she’s on her way out the door after four years in office, it’s discovered she was doing classified government business on a personal email with a homebrew server—literally in her basement—and thousands of her emails were “disappeared” using a high-tech firm’s “Bleach Bit” technology.

And that’s just the prequel. Imagine where Shonda Rhimes could go from there.

Actually even Rhimes probably wouldn’t have the audacity to put Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac at the height of the investigation, or allow an FBI agent who literally pledged to stop Donald Trump from becoming president to oversee his case.

FBI agents getting meals, drinks and tickets to sporting events from reporters? Agents sending “vive la resistance” messages making oversight decisions in Trump’s case? Not to mention the new revelation of the 26-year-old New York Times reporter engaged in a romantic relationship with a 57-year-old Senate Intelligence Committee staffer—one of the committees overseeing the RussiaGate probe.

Plot twists like these would be laughed out of a script meeting.

Reading the IG report, one can imagine a MAGA hat-wearing Greek chorus in the background chanting, “If a Republican had done this…..”  Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican former prosecutor who has been defending the DOJ and decried attacks on the FBI, raises that very point in his response:

“The treatment afforded to former Secretary Clinton and other potential subjects and targets was starkly different from the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign officials. Voluntariness and consent in the former were replaced with search warrants, subpoenas, and other compulsory processes in the latter. Many of the investigators and supervisors were the same in both investigations but the investigatory tactics were not.”

In other words, the premise that motivated so many Trump supporters is proven true: The DC Establishment really was out to get Trump.

The actions of the FBI or DOJ may, in the end, be defensible. No legal line may have been crossed.  But for people who elected Donald Trump because they felt like their government viewed them as a problem to be solved and not as citizens to be served, the IG report confirms what they’ve feared all along.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-for-trump-supporters-doj-ig-report/

Justice Department’s Report Still Smells Hillary Rotten at the FBI!

Crime and Punishment

by Conrad Black  at American Greatness:

The Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal email server laid bare a widespread pattern of conduct that “cast a cloud” over the FBI. The report incites the inference that the Bureau is a severely corrupted organization, tainted and warped by unconstitutional ambitions to meddle in electoral matters.

Although Inspector General Michael Horowitz asserted he lacked “documentary and testamentary evidence” to prove political bias ruled in making decisions of great political consequence, clearly he did not mean bias was not present. On what the report presented, it is almost certain that the FBI, at the deliberate direction of its leaders and senior Justice Department officials, intervened completely improperly in political matters. The inspector general led the country to the edge of the decision, and will presumably make a number of criminal referrals for possible indictments, as he did after his initial report.

Horowitz is not a prosecutor. But he recorded extreme anti-Trump bias in many people and on many occasions. The presence of Peter Strzok as head of the FBI Clinton whitewash operation, jumping at once to take over the effort to tie Trump to Russia so as to rig the presidential election (though he acknowledged “there is no there there”), and then on to lead Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation of Trump, is scandalous. At mid-point in the circuit, Strzok assures his Justice Department paramour Lisa Page, “We will stop him” (Trump). This makes Horowitz’s pious attachment to inconclusiveness very tenuous.

Former FBI Director James Comey emerges as a psychopath incapable of telling fact from fiction, himself guilty of possible criminal misuse of emails, as well as likely obstruction of justice, untruthful answers to Congress under oath, theft of government property, illegal leaks, and in Horowitz’s words, “usurping” the authority of the attorney general and deputy attorney general, “serious improprieties and errors of judgment,” and severe breach of Bureau practices and policies for “unpersuasive” reasons. He is completely disgraced and is on the low road to indictment.

Comey and his counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, when he was a prosecutor, never accorded any mercy to those whom they gleefully prosecuted, (such as Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, and me), and it will be a fine divertissement to see how they do when their turn comes to face the lawless rogue monster of American criminal justice. Retaining proportionality, there will be some resemblance to the fate of Robespierre’s chief prosecutor under the Committee of Public Safety, Fouquier-Tinville, and Stalin’s police ministers, Yagoda, Yezhov, and Beria: all were executed when the political currents shifted.

Revelations About Obama
We also learn for the first time that that President Obama was not, as he has claimed, unaware of Secretary Clinton’s illegal email activity, which, Horowitz also confirms, gave “foreign actors” access to unknowable quantities of classified material—a major security breach. There is little doubt that President Obama and his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, and her deputy Sally Yates, were complicit in the harassment of the Trump campaign, including the implantation of informers within the campaign, the surveillance of the campaign through telephone intercepts and other means under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant requested from a court under a false pretext of treating the Steele dossier, a farrago of lies and defamations commissioned by the Clinton campaign, as an objective product of respectable impartial, professional intelligence gathering with no hint of its origins or methods or purpose.

Comey inherited the FBI from Robert Mueller, who must have inculcated the initial ethos of omnipotence and infallibility. Horowitz reveals many instances of the tangible corruption of FBI agents by interested parties in investigations, and of contact between agents and the media so frequent that it is impossible to identify the principal suspects in the Niagara of illegal leaks the FBI’s agents have committed. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has already been referred for possible criminal indictment, got around to recusing himself on the Clinton “matter” a week before the 2016 election, after a Clinton ally had given McCabe’s wife’s Virginia state senate campaign almost $800,000 while McCabe was leading the soft-pointed investigation of Mrs. Clinton.

Somebody serious, meaning no one now in sight in the Justice Department, is going to have to come to grips with the role of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in all this. Obviously, Clinton lied to federal officers. It is inconceivable that Obama did not know a legally damaging amount about this appalling skullduggery. The country needs the truth.

Though Horowitz wasn’t looking at the intelligence agencies, the coordinated law-breaking and perjury of senior officials, almost certainly including the former directors of the FBI, CIA (John Brennan), and the Office of National Intelligence (James Clapper), has to be addressed, starting with their frequent lies to Congress, and apparent participation in a plan with Comey to mislead the president-elect about the Steele dossier. All of this is so far from passing a smell test, no person of normal olfactory sensibilities could inhale through their nostrils while being exposed to it.

We cannot wait for the Horowitz molasses to run for another 18 months—as it did to produce this report—to get to the bottom of the partisan Russian probe, the infamous Steele dossier and the apparent manipulation of the FISA court, a serious crime. The Democrats are trying to run out the clock, and the macabre farce noire of Mueller’s investigation, which returns every few months to launch another feeble assault on Paul Manafort for reasons having nothing to do with its ostensible purpose (Trump-Russian collusion), must not continue ad nauseam et infinitum.

The well-tried Democratic dirty tricks operation is doing its best, one last time, with a contemporaneous spurious civil lawsuit against the Trump Foundation, from the Spitzer-Cuomo-Schneiderman-Underwood legal sewer of the attorney general of New York. The wax-works official Democratic leadership—Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and their claque—are trying to spin the report as inconclusive and maintain that Comey was more helpful to Trump than to Clinton. The reaction of the new FBI director, Christopher Wray, promising to implement Horowitz’s recommendations and acknowledging errors “in hindsight,” was completely unacceptable. He should have been wearing short pants and a Yogi Bear hat as he promised to “teach” his 35,000 agents to avoid political bias.

The Washington Sleaze Factory Needs to be Upended
The old Washington sleaze factory is talking to itself. We are between the lightning and the thunder and the country cannot tolerate this level of sanctimonious, institutionalized corruption any longer.

It’s now or never for the pitiful, self-emasculated Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He must name a special counsel to get to the bottom of the origins and development of the Russian investigation, while Mueller is ordered to make an interim report, show cause why he should be allowed to continue at all, and if so, his staff must be purged of known political partisans. Its origins and functioning have been arrogantly unprofessional and they are not close to anything relevant to the non-existent Trump-Russia relationship. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is compromised by approving the renewal of an illegal FISA warrant, stonewalling Congress, and buckling to Comey in appointing Mueller right after Comey was fired (on Rosenstein’s recommendation).

Nothing in any of these investigations raises the slightest questions about the probity of the conduct of Donald Trump, who has been the victim of Clintonian chicanery, Sessions’ impotence, and a historic media smear campaign. The president must require the public revelation of all relevant documentation, redacting only what an independent unquestionable source identifies as necessary to keep secret for reasons of the safety of an agent or human asset or national security. Then let the people judge in November.

If Sessions or Rosenstein won’t appoint a new special counsel with a proper mandate and impose reasonable guidelines on Mueller, they should be sacked and the solicitor general, Noel Francisco, should be ordered to do what his superiors have failed to do, pending senatorial approval of replacements.

If Clinton had won, as the leaders of the Justice Department assumed and passionately hoped and tried to assure, none of this would have come to light. If they had just allowed Donald Trump a decent honeymoon, as every other incoming president receives, he would not have overturned the rocks and it all would have slipped into the past. But in confecting and promoting the monstrous fraud of Trump-Russian collusion, they tried, first to subvert a presidential election and then to overturn the result of one. What occurred was a massive criminal assault on the Constitution. The tumor has been ripped open and now it must be excised.

Despite Horowitz’s partial disclaimer, he has almost certainly proved that political bias perverted the administration of justice. Those responsible and complicit must be indicted, convicted, and punished, with the same severity they have shown to their often guiltless victims.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/17/crime-and-punishment/

Mollie Hemingway Reviews Inspector General Report on Comey Mess

11 Quick Things To Know About The Inspector General’s Report

The Justice Department inspector general report about the FBI reveals a shocking anti-Trump, pro-Hillary bias endemic to the agency’s related investigations.
Mollie Hemingway

By 

On Thursday, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a long-anticipated report on the FBI’s handling of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server that handled classified information. Here are some quick takeaways from the report.

1. Learn How To Interpret An IG Report

The best way to understand an inspector general (IG) report is less as a fiercely independent investigation that seeks justice and more like what you’d expect from a company’s human resources department. Employees frequently think that a company’s human resources department exists to serve employees. There’s some truth in that, but it’s more true that the human resources department exists to serve the corporation.

At the end of the day, the HR department wants what’s best for the company. The FBI’s IG Michael Horowitz has a good reputation for good reason. But his report is in support of the FBI and its policies and procedures. As such, the findings will be focused on helping the FBI improve its adherence to those policies and procedures. Those who expected demands for justice in the face of widespread evidence of political bias and poor judgment by immature agents and executives were people unfamiliar with the purpose of IG reports.

The IG is also a government bureaucrat producing government products that are supposed to be calm and boring. In the previous report that led to Andrew McCabe’s firing as deputy director of the FBI and referral for criminal prosecution, his serial lying under oath was dryly phrased as “lack of candor.” In this report detailing widespread problems riddled throughout the Clinton email probe, the language is similarly downplayed. That’s particularly true in the executive summary, which attempts to downplay the actual details that fill the report with evidence of poor decision-making, extreme political bias, and problematic patterns of behavior.

2. FBI Agent Who Led Both The Clinton and Trump Probes Promised He’d Prevent Trump’s Election

Such as this one! On page 420, the IG says that the conduct of five FBI employees who were caught talking about their extreme political bias in the context of their duties “has brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.” The Midyear investigation was the code for the Clinton probe. Or note this blistering passage:

[W]hen one senior FBI official, [Peter] Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, [Lisa] Page, that ‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

The report goes on to say that the text messages and Strzok’s decision to prioritize the counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign over the Clinton email criminal investigation “led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

This text is not just interesting because the FBI’s deputy head of the counterintelligence division who was investigating a major-party candidate told the woman he was cheating on his wife with that “we” would stop the candidate from becoming president. It’s also interesting because this text was hidden from congressional committees performing oversight of the FBI.

3. Comey Mishandled The Clinton Probe In Multiple Ways

It’s worth re-reading Acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 9, 2017, recommendation that James Comey be fired as FBI director. He cited Comey’s usurpation of the attorney general’s authority in his press conference announcing that Clinton’s case would be closed without prosecution, the release of derogatory information about Clinton despite the decision to not indict her, and Comey’s letter to Congress announcing the FBI had reopened a probe against Clinton.

The IG backs up each and every one of those critiques, and adds much more detail to them.

We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.

The IG said Comey violated longstanding department practice to avoid “trashing people we’re not charging.” He also inadequately and incompletely explained how Justice prosecutors came to make decisions. “Many of the problems with the statement resulted from Comey’s failure to coordinate with Department officials,” the IG wrote. Had he talked with them, they would have warned him about the problems his statement posed. What’s more, the prosecutors had a very different understanding of why they were declining to charge Clinton than the one Comey claimed they had in his public press conference.

Comey also violated departmental practice in announcing publicly he reopened the probe after additional relevant emails were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Both of these decisions were controversial inside and outside the agency.

4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird

The 568-page report includes many examples of Comey being duplicitous and sneaky during his handling of the Clinton email probe. For instance, he asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch how to handle questions regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information on a secret server. She told him to call it a “matter.” He didn’t object and even complied.

But a year later, the conversation was leaked to The New York Times in a story that painted Comey as a non-partisan truth-teller beset by both Democrats and Republicans. Daniel Richman, the same man who was used to leak Comey’s anti-Trump memos, was a source for the anti-Lynch story.

Comey threatened to appoint a special counsel in the Clinton probe if Justice officials didn’t help him get what he wanted. He bizarrely claimed he was going to announce he’d make no recommendation on the Clinton email probe. He decided he was going to make a solo announcement trashing Clinton while announcing she was not being charged, but let the Justice Department think they would be making a statement together:

Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions.

He claimed that he didn’t grasp the significance of the hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails being found on Weiner’s computer because he didn’t know that Weiner was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Beyond being too ridiculous to believe, the claim is hardly exonerating. It would mean he was not interested to learn that hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails relevant to a highly charged criminal investigation were found on the laptop of an unrelated man.

Comey asked Justice officials for feedback on his decisions but did so through assistants, suggesting he viewed any feedback as a dangerous encroachment on his decision-making.

“We asked Comey why he asked for the Department’s feedback and then ignored the feedback that he received,” the IG wrote. Later, “Both Lynch and [Deputy Attorney General Sally] Yates explained that they were concerned that any direct discussion with Comey—particularly any discussion in which they told him not to send the letter—would be perceived as an attempt to prevent him from fulfilling his ‘personal ethical obligation’ to notify Congress. Both stated that they were concerned that the fact of any such direct discussions would leak and would be portrayed as Department leadership attempting to ‘prevent information damaging to a candidate from coming out’ (Lynch) or ‘strong-arming’ Comey (Yates).”

5. FBI Has A Massive Leak Problem And Is Doing Nothing About It

As mentioned, both Lynch and Yates were worried that performing legitimate oversight of Comey would be leaked against them to the media. Fear of leaks was also mentioned by many top FBI officials as a major reason that the Southern District of New York was able to force the FBI to reopen the Clinton probe.

“We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review,” the report stated. Two attachments were included showing rampant discussions with reportersby people not authorized to be talking to reporters. One FBI executive was caught having had 26 conversations with one reporter and seven conversations with another reporter. They even created charts to help show how rampant the conversations were:

The report showed myriad FBI employees violating FBI policy and department ethics rules.

FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events.

The IG said the leaks were difficult to track down because of how many people had access to classified and non-public information. The IG also said the culture of widespread leaking made it difficult to crack down:

Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.

6. FBI Almost Got Away With Ignoring Clinton Emails On Weiner Laptop

In September 2016, when an investigator in the Southern District of New York found hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails and Blackberry messages on a laptop being searched in relation to an investigation of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, he immediately alerted his supervisors. They alerted the FBI, who sat on the information for weeks, only acting after the New York office complained repeatedly.

By October 3, the case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation expressed concern that the FBI appeared to be sitting on what he’d told them. Later he told the IG:

The crickets I was hearing was really making me uncomfortable because something was going to come crashing down…. And my understanding, which is uninformed because…I didn’t work the Hillary Clinton matter. My understanding at the time was I am telling you people I have private Hillary Clinton emails, number one, and BlackBerry messages, number two. I’m telling you that we have potentially 10 times the volume that Director Comey said we had on the record. Why isn’t anybody here? Like, if I’m the supervisor of any CI squad in Seattle and I hear about this, I’m getting on with headquarters and saying, hey, some agent working child porn here may have [Hillary Clinton] emails. Get your -ss on the phone, call [the case agent], and get a copy of that drive, because that’s how you should be. And that nobody reached out to me within, like, that night, I still to this day I don’t understand what the hell went wrong.

And I told her, I’m a little scared here. I don’t know what to do because I’m not political. Like I don’t care who wins this election, but this is going to make us look really, really horrible. And it could ruin this case, too. And…I said the thing that also bothers me is that Comey’s testimony is inaccurate. And as a big admirer of the guy, and I think he’s a straight shooter, I wanted to, I felt like he needed to know, like, we got this. And I didn’t know if he did.

Although all the relevant information was given to the FBI by September 29, they came back to the agent weeks later to ask questions he’d repeatedly answered. But the FBI agents claimed that the information they learned in late October was new to them. The IG says this is not true: “By no later than September 29, the FBI had learned virtually every fact that was cited by the FBI in late October as justification for obtaining the search warrant for the Weiner laptop.”

The FBI claimed that they didn’t take action on the laptop because “1. The FBI Midyear team was waiting for additional information about the contents of the laptop from NYO, which was not provided until late October. 2. The FBI Midyear team could not review the emails without additional legal authority, such as consent or a new search warrant. 3. The FBI Midyear team and senior FBI officials did not believe that the information on the laptop was likely to be significant. 4. Key members of the FBI Midyear team had been reassigned to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election, which was a higher priority.”

The IG said these excuses were hogwash, saying that the first was “unpersuasive,” the second “illogical,” the third “inconsistent” and “insufficient,” and the fourth “unpersuasive and concerning.” The overarching feeling of the report is that the FBI leaders who handled both the Clinton and Trump probes worked very hard to pretend the Weiner incident didn’t happen, only being forced by the New York office’s insistence that protocol be followed.

7. Breathtaking Bias

Some FBI defenders latched onto the IG’s claim that he “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific
investigative decisions we reviewed.” All that means is that none of the politically biased texts specifically said political bias was leading them to make certain decisions. Of course, that would be a weird thing to find in any case.

What the investigators found, however, was breathtaking anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias from five of the key employees handling the Clinton email probe. No evidence was found of pro-Trump bias. And this evidence of profound bias is only for those who were foolish enough to record their extreme views. The IG also apparently had no texts from Justice Department officials, perhaps because Justice didn’t preserve them.

The texts range from vile insults of Trump and his supporters to fears about how awful a Trump presidency would be and the need to prevent it. One employee said Trump voters were “all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer discussed feeling “numb” by Trump’s November 2016 election win, later proclaiming “Viva le Resistance” when asked about Trump.

Strzok wrote in July 2016, “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be.” After the election, Page wrote that she’d bought “All the President’s Men,” adding, “Figure I needed to brush up on watergate.” The two openly fantasize about impeachment.

In the preparation to interview Clinton as part of the criminal probe, Page tells a handful of her colleagues to take it easy on Clinton. “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear.”

After each text exchange, the IG report includes defenses from the agents, some even harder to believe than the previous:

August 8, 2016: In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, ‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.’ When asked about this text message, Strzok stated that he did not specifically recall sending it, but that he believed that it was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation.

Sure, hoss.

All five of the FBI employees were referred back to the FBI for disciplinary action.

8. Clinton Got Breaks, But Some Backfired

While Comey harmed Clinton with how he handled his public announcements about her case, the IG report paints an investigation that was overall quite favorable toward her and her associates. During the Robert Mueller investigation, the federal government has played hardball with Trump associates, ringing them up on false statement charges, raiding their offices, arresting them without warning, and encroaching on attorney-client relationships. For Clinton, a much different approach was taken.

To take just one example, look at the case of Paul Combetta, an employee who handled the migration of Clinton’s email accounts across servers then later deleted the emails. Clinton probe members were sure he was lying about the deletion of the emails in violation of a congressional preservation order. In repeated interviews, he claimed he didn’t delete her emails.

The agents had an email where he talked about the “Hilary coverup operation.” They decided that wasn’t a big deal. One agent said he believed Combetta should have been charged with “false statements for lying multiple times.” But overall they decided it was just so confusing, that the failure to tell the truth was “largely due to a lack of sophistication and poor legal representation.” They gave him immunity, and he started singing. He admitted deleting the emails “despite his awareness of Congress’s preservation order and his understanding that the order meant that ‘he should not disturb Clinton’s email data on the PRN server.’” Sounds nice.

It seems likely that Clinton’s handling of classified information on a secret server, and the FBI’s investigation of it, caused her problems during the 2016 election. But it’s also interesting how the efforts by many to help Clinton kept backfiring. More than anything, there is a lack of confidence that political considerations were absent from the decision to let Clinton skate.

President Obama gave interviews where he stated that Clinton didn’t have intent to harm national security, a talking point later carried by Comey himself. Even before Comey followed Obama’s lead, observers worried that Obama was giving guidance as opposed to offering his opinion. An Obama White House spokesman said he knew Clinton was not a “target” of the investigation, suggesting he had insider knowledge. The FBI claimed he didn’t have insider knowledge.

When the New York office told the FBI about Weiner’s laptop, it appears that the FBI tried to run out the election clock before dealing with it. It would have worked, too, if the New York office hadn’t pushed the matter right before the election — the absolute worst time to deal with a reopening of the investigation.

9. Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme

The IG found that Obama was “one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail[.]com account.”

In fact, Clinton used her private email for “an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary,” a move that led investigators to believe hostile actors had likely gained access to her server. But a paragraph in a draft of Comey’s exoneration of Clinton was changed from Obama to “another senior government official,” and later deleted.

Obama had falsely told reporters he didn’t know of Clinton’s private email system.

10. FBI Agent Joked Clinton Associate Who Lied Would Never Be Charged, Questioned Legitimacy Of Investigation

FBI agents discussed how a witness who obviously lied to them about the Clinton probe would never be charged:

FBI Employee: ‘boom…how did the [witness] go’
Agent 1: ‘Awesome. Lied his -ss off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,’
FBI Employee: ‘would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal’
Agent 1: ‘I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax – aint noone gonna do sh-t’

That same agent also openly discussed political considerations affecting the Clinton probe. The IG gave a few examples:

January 15, 2016: Responding to a question of when the investigation would be finished, Agent 1 stated, ‘[M]y guess is March. Doesnt matter what we have, political winds will want to beat the Primarys.’
January 28, 2016: ‘…The case is the same is all of them. Alot of work and bullsh-t for a political exercise.’
February 1, 2016: ‘…Its primary season – so we’re being dictated to now….’
February 1, 2016: ‘This is the biggest political sh-t show of them all. No substance. Up at dawn – pride swallowing seige. No headset and hermetically sealed in SIOC.’
February 2, 2016: Responding to a question about how the investigation was going, ‘Going well…. Busy, and sometimes I feel for naught (political exercise), but I feel good….’
May 6, 2016, to Agent 5: ‘pretty bad news today…someone has breathed some political urgency into this…. Everyday DD brief and once a week D brief from now on.’

11. FBI’s Insulting Response

FBI Director Christopher Wray gave a press conference in front of a compliant press corps where he said, “nothing in this report impugns the integrity of our workforce as a whole or the FBI as an institution.” In fact, the report paints a picture of an FBI with a problematic culture.

It’s not just Comey’s usurpation of authority and failure to comply with practices. Multiple people were involved in his condemned decisions. Others were cited for bad judgement in recusal decisions or failure to adhere to recusals. Political bias was rampant in the team of people who handled both the Clinton and Trump email probes. So were leaks, accepting gifts from reporters, incompetence, and other problems.

Instead, Wray issued a strawman defense of employees, bragged about the high number of applicants to the agency, and talked about the low percentage of recruits who were accepted.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/15/11-quick-things-know-inspector-generals-report/

MORE LYIN’ LOVERS OF THE FBI

by Scott Johnson  at PowerLine:

 

Eric Felten extracts the story of the FBI’s other Trump-hating lovers from the Department of Justice Inspector General report released earlier today. Felten’s account is devastating. Please check it out.

I want only to add one point to Eric’s outstanding article. Forget the culture of leaks at the FBI (one of the report’s institutional criticisms of the bureau). There was a culture of lying shot through the top ranks of the FBI, and it started with former FBI Director James Comey. The culture of lying ran from Comey through his deputy, Andrew McCabe, and from McCabe through the rest of the senior ranks. What we have here is a formerly highly respected institution gone wildly astray in high-minded dishonesty. Their motto might be lifted from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: “Mendacity is a system that we live in.” As Felten tactfully puts it, disciplining the employees involved “will not be nearly enough to fix what’s amiss with the FBI and the DoJ.”

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/more-lyin-lovers-of-the-fbi.php

Should Christopher Wray Be Removed as IG for STILL Hiding Hillary FBI Gang Crimes?

I looked forward to this evening’s current FBI Director Christopher Wray’s  TV performance regarding the agency’s corruption among its leaders to secure the victory of notoriously crooked Hillary Clinton in her drive to defeat GOP candidate Donald J. Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.   Such conspiracies are usually confined  to fascist police state dictatorships rather than in our America.

I was hoping to hear a proper confession from Wray regarding modern FBI sins,  not the  burp of pretense from his presentation…..the pretense a few FBI folks made a mistake or two communicating their disdain for folks unHillary like and conspired to do something about it……

Citizen FBI Director Wray,   announces below his cleansing solution proudly and loudly.  He will direct for the future that ALL FBI personnel from top to bottom will be trained, indoctrinated into proper FBI “protocol” in the future….

Yet, there is no proof whatsoever that any but the top elite of the FBI itself, from then Director James Comey  and  at least a half dozen more the FBI ELITES who gathered to  corrupt the 2016 Presidential election with  FBI power to  guarantee the White House  for CROOKED HILLARY no matter what!

It was only a matter of time that our post-JudeoChristian America’s FBI might become as corrupt as the nation’s leftist  universities, schools, newspapers, and television industry, and the disappearance of so many American families.

Christopher Wray, however, performed for the most part as a functionary,  an excuse maker avoiding the damage done to today’s FBI truly devoted honest Americans who still believe in the glory of Truth over Evil.

Yet, I did notice a quiver or two on his face while lecturing to the public suggesting FBI bureaucratic superiority,  that he knew a cancerous tumor had been removed from the patient he and his fellow workers loved before the Hillary affair.

What do you think?

 

 

Why Isn’t Obstructionist, Rod Rosenstein, Sent to Siberia?

Rosenstein threatened to ‘subpoena’ GOP-led committee in ‘chilling’ clash over records, emails show

by Catherine Herridge  at Fox:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to “subpoena” emails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on a Republican-led House committee during a tense meeting earlier this year, according to emails reviewed by Fox News documenting the encounter and reflecting what aides described as a “personal attack.”

The emails memorialized a January 2018 closed-door meeting involving senior FBI and Justice Department officials as well as members of the House Intelligence Committee. The account claimed Rosenstein threatened to turn the tables on the committee’s inquiries regarding the Russia probe.

“The DAG [Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] criticized the Committee for sending our requests in writing and was further critical of the Committee’s request to have DOJ/FBI do the same when responding,” the committee’s then-senior counsel for counterterrorism Kash Patel wrote to the House Office of General Counsel. “Going so far as to say that if the Committee likes being litigators, then ‘we [DOJ] too [are] litigators, and we will subpoena your records and your emails,’ referring to HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and Congress overall.”

A second House committee staffer at the meeting backed up Patel’s account, writing: “Let me just add that watching the Deputy Attorney General launch a sustained personal attack against a congressional staffer in retaliation for vigorous oversight was astonishing and disheartening. … Also, having the nation’s #1 (for these matters) law enforcement officer threaten to ‘subpoena your calls and emails’ was downright chilling.”

The committee staffer noted that Rosenstein’s comment could be interpreted as meaning the department would “vigorously defend a contempt action” — which might be expected. But the staffer continued, “I also read it as a not-so-veiled threat to unleash the full prosecutorial power of the state against us.”

Representatives with both the DOJ and FBI disputed the account in the emails.

“The FBI disagrees with a number of characterizations of the meeting as described in the excerpts of a staffer’s emails provided to us by Fox News,” the FBI said in a statement.

A DOJ official told Fox News that Rosenstein “never threatened anyone in the room with a criminal investigation.” The official said the department and bureau officials in the room “are all quite clear that the characterization of events laid out here is false,” adding that Rosenstein was responding to a threat of contempt.

‘[H]aving the nation’s #1 … law enforcement officer threaten to ‘subpoena your calls and emails’ was downright chilling.’

– House Intelligence Committee staffer, describing clash with Rod Rosenstein

“The Deputy Attorney General was making the point—after being threatened with contempt — that as an American citizen charged with the offense of contempt of Congress, he would have the right to defend himself, including requesting production of relevant emails and text messages and calling them as witnesses to demonstrate that their allegations are false,” the official said. “That is why he put them on notice to retain relevant emails and text messages, and he hopes they did so. (We have no process to obtain such records without congressional approval.)”

Further, the official said that when Rosenstein returns to the United States from a work trip, “he will request that the House General counsel conduct an internal investigation of these Congressional staffers’ conduct.”

Details of the January 2018 meeting first trickled out in the immediate aftermath. Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett tweeted in February on the purported subpoena threat.

But the emails, reviewed by Fox News, provide additional details about that encounter. A former Justice Department official said the account may help explain how the relationship between the DOJ and the Republican-led House committee has broken down in the months since.

“This is much worse than a deteriorating relationship – this is a massive breakdown in the system. A deputy attorney general does not make subpoena threats lightly. This is not the norm to say the least,” Tom Dupree, the former principal deputy assistant attorney general under the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News. “It’s hard to tell whether [Rosenstein] was sending a message to back off, or whether he was just trying to illustrate how invasive he considered the demands from Congress. But either way, it is a clear signal that the relationship is fractured, and it’s not clear how things will get repaired.”

The tense session over the boundaries of congressional oversight – and the Justice Department’s concern for protecting sources and methods – appears to have set the tone for a sustained records dispute as well as the latest confrontation over Chairman Devin Nunes’ request for information related to an alleged FBI confidential human source who was in contact with the Trump campaign.

A senior Justice Department official said Rosenstein and others have offered to meet Thursday with a group of House leaders known as the Gang of Eight. In a letter, Nunes, R-Calif. – whose staffers documented the Jan. 10 meeting – made clear he wants the records made available to all intelligence committee members and select staff two days earlier.

The Jan. 10 meeting came amid government surveillance abuse allegations, outstanding House subpoenas for Russia probe records and the looming threat of contempt. The Capitol Hill session pertained to a request for a sensitive document, according to the emails – and included Rosenstein, Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Stephen Boyd, then-FBI Assistant Director Greg Brower and FBI Director Christopher Wray, as well as Nunes and three committee staffers.

The emails reviewed by Fox News show at least two committee staffers memorialized their concerns about the deputy attorney general’s alleged statements, at the request of the Office of General Counsel.

“I know I’ve relayed the following to you over the phone, and per your suggestion reducing it to writing so there is at least some record of the event,” wrote Patel, who is now the committee’s national security adviser.

The two staffers were pressed on whether Rosenstein could justify the comments as “merely referring to how DOJ would vigorously defend any litigation that the committee might initiate?” — an apparent reference to Nunes’ threat to hold Rosenstein and Wray in contempt for not providing records.

“I took … it as the DAG’s clearly articulated course of action should the committee continue its investigation in the current manner, which he found unacceptable and improper. It was not in response to how they would defend litigation (ie contempt or the like),” Patel responded. “It was about leaks, source contact, and other alleged disclosures by the committee.”

Asked about the January meeting, Nunes provided a statement to Fox News noting they referred the incident to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office: “The Intelligence Committee considers staff concerns at the most serious level, especially those involving interactions with the executive branch. Based on the justified concerns expressed by our lead staff investigators, we referred this matter to the Speaker’s Office.”

Fox News provided extensive quotes from the emails and offered an opportunity to respond to all parties. The House Office of General Counsel declined to comment. A source close to the speaker said they “encouraged the Committee to work through the non-partisan DOJ Inspector General’s Office.”

A committee source said “going to DOJ IG is one of several steps under consideration.”

The DOJ official later said in an email that “no formal complaint was ever filed [with] the GC or IG.” The official also said that Rosenstein and Nunes “went to dinner with a mutual friend the night of this meeting and the chairman didn’t raise any concerns about the conversation at that dinner.”

Dupree, though, said the tensions between Congress and the Justice Department go well beyond the traditional oversight negotiations.

“Rarely, if ever, has it deterioriated to this point where you have what appears to be threats going back and forth between the two sides,” he said.

Fox News’ Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson contributed to this report. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/12/rosenstein-threatened-to-subpoena-gop-led-committee-in-chilling-clash-over-records-emails-show.html

Can Congress Become Honest about FBI Leftism Corruption?

The Papadopoulos Case Needs a Closer Look

by Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review:

“Is the former campaign adviser accused of misrepresenting his subjective state of mind, not objective reality?

Congress should be taking a very hard look at the prosecution of George Papadopoulos. To these eyes, the harder one looks, the more the Papadopoulos case appears to be much ado about nothing. That is no small thing: The “much ado” here is a purported Trump–Russia conspiracy to subvert a presidential election.

There has always been something fishy about the charge filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against Papadopoulos, who was a green-as-grass 28-year-old when he made the big primary-season move from Ben Carson–campaign novice to Trump-campaign novice. Peruse the “Statement of the Offense,” filed by Mueller’s lead prosecutor on the case, Jeannie S. Rhee (who is fresh from a stint representing the Clinton Foundation — and donating $5,400 to the Hillary Clinton campaign). You find that there is collusion with Russia pouring off every one of the document’s 13 pages — meetings with shadowy figures portrayed as Kremlin operatives, apparent schemes to undermine Mrs. Clinton, ambitious plans for pow-wows between candidate Trump and strongman Putin.

Yet . . . there is no charge having anything to do with “collusion” — in the criminal-law sense of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to commit “cyber-espionage” or otherwise sabotage the 2016 election.

Instead, after the big 13-page wind-up, Papadopoulos ends up pleading guilty to a minor false-statements charge — one that is convoluted and, in the scheme of things, trivial. In essence, Papadopoulos is said to have lied about the timing and scope of his contact with the Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud. Mueller, Rhee & Co. allege that Papadopoulos falsely claimed that the contacts started before he joined the Trump campaign. It turns out that they started on March 14, 2016; this was some time after he “learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the campaign” (page 3, paragraph 4) but a week before the campaign’s March 21 announcement that he was a campaign “policy advisor” (page 4, paragraph 6).

In concluding that this seems picayune, it is not my purpose to challenge the technical legal sufficiency of the charge. The requirement to prove a false statement was “material” (see Section 1001 of the federal penal code) is a very low hurdle. My point is — and has been — that, since allegations of “collusion” have roiled the nation and threatened a presidency for nearly two years, a ho-hum false-statements charge is a strange way to treat the one and only guy who, according to the special counsel, colluded up a storm.

But this only scratches the surface of strangeness.

While much that has gone on in the Mueller investigation is curious, I have assumed the candor of the special counsel’s portrayal of the Papadopoulos case: The young man was approached by an agent of Russia, who eventually informed him (on April 26, 2016) that the Kremlin had “dirt” on the Democratic party’s nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the form of “thousands” of “emails of Clinton” (pages 3–7). To my mind, then, the only questions involved (a) the nature of Mifsud’s relationship to the Putin regime and (b) whether the emails in question were the hacked DNC emails (which Democrats have suggested) or the thousands of emails Clinton deleted from her homebrew server (which seemed to me more likely).

Yet, important reporting by the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel, and Lee Smith at Real Clear Investigations calls for a more exacting perusal of Mueller’s allegations. Specifically: (1) Is Mueller really claiming that Papadopoulos was approached by an agent of Russia and (2) did this agent actually claim that the Russians’ “dirt” involved emails — and if so, is there reason to believe he knew what he was talking about?

When one looks carefully at Mueller’s statement of the offense, and at the one-count criminal-information to which Papadopoulos pled guilty, one realizes Mueller is not claiming that Mifsud and his associates truly were Kremlin operatives — only that Papadopoulos was under the impression that they were. The information legalistically accuses Papadopoulos of lying about his “interactions with certain foreign nationals whom he understood to have close connections with senior Russian government officials” (emphasis added). That is, Papadopoulos is accused of misrepresenting his subjective state of mind, not objective reality.

Mueller is not saying Mifsud and his associates really have close connections to Putin’s regime. And as Lee Smith details, it is highly unlikely that they do. Mifsud himself has denied that he is a Russian operative, and those who know him well describe him as tied to Western intelligence agents. As for the Russian associates he introduced to Papadopoulos, they are: a woman who falsely claimed to be Putin’s niece, and who falsely promised to introduce Papadopoulos to Russia’s ambassador to Britain; and Ivan Timofeev, whom Mueller and Rhee pregnantly describe as “the Russian MFA connection” (as in Ministry of Foreign Affairs) but who is actually a young academic researcher running a think tank that has some sort of tie to the MFA but no discernible connections to Russian intelligence.

Two of Smith’s sources, German lawyer Stephan Roh and French political analyst Thierry Pastor, are friends of Mifsud’s who have written a book called The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis. According to them, Mifsud denies that he told Papadopoulos anything about emails related to Clinton — and, indeed, denies that he was told anything by Russians about such emails.

My first impression on reading that is: “So what? Mifsud is probably lying.”

Again, so what, right? Papadopoulos is cooperating with Mueller and has said he heard Mifsud talk about emails. So what more do we need to know?

Well . . . maybe a lot.

Remember, there is no allegation that Mifsud actually knew that the Russians had Clinton emails, let alone that he ever showed Papadopoulos any such emails. The claim is that Mifsud was told by unidentified Russian officials that the Kremlin had the emails.

So, what happens after Mifsud, allegedly, told Papadopoulos the Russians had these emails? According to Mueller’s statement of the offense, the following day Papadopoulos sends two emails to high-ranking Trump-campaign officials about his meeting with Mifsud, and neither one of them says anything about emails. It appears that Papadopoulos was myopically focused on the possibility — farfetched, but apparently real to Papadopoulos — that Mifsud could help arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin.

Now, again, this does not mean Mifsud did not mention emails to Papadopoulos. But let’s consider the critical events that Mueller and Rhee omit from the statement of the offense.

On approximately May 10, just two weeks after the April 26 meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos has his barroom meeting with the Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Both Chuck Ross and Kim Strassel note that, in an interview with the Australian press, Downer recounted that Papadopoulos was not specific about what kind of material he’d heard Russia was holding. He did not say emails. He did not even say it was “dirt” on Clinton; only that whatever it was “could be damaging to her.”

Meanwhile, in September 2016, Stefan Halper, a British-American academic with longtime connections to the CIA, was tasked by the FBI to approach Papadopoulos. As Ross has reported, based on an unidentified source with knowledge of the conversation, Papadopoulos told Halper he knew nothing about any emails or Russian hacking — notwithstanding Halper’s aggressive, loaded questioning on the subject.

It is very hard to understand what is going on here. But in light of the centrality of Papadopoulos to the Obama administration’s purported suspicions about Trump-campaign “coordination” in Russia’s election-meddling — suspicions that are said to have justified the use of the government’s counterintelligence powers against the administration’s political opposition — it is essential to nail down what the Papadopoulos prosecution has established.

 

• Is Special Counsel Mueller contending that Mifsud and his associates were authentic agents of Russia, or merely that Papadopoulos may have thought they were?

• What exactly does the special counsel allege that Mifsud told Papadopoulos the Russians were hoarding? Did Mifsud really say the Russians had emails? If so, exactly what emails?

• Lee Smith notes that the FBI interviewed Mifsud in February 2017, shortly after the FBI interviewed Papadopoulos. Did Mifsud deny being a Russian operative? Did he admit to telling Papadopoulos that the Russians had Clinton-related emails, or did he deny it (as he denied it to Smith’s sources)?

• What if any role did the State Department play in the transmission to the FBI of Alexander Downer’s account of his meeting with Papadopoulos? How did the State Department describe what Papadopoulos said? How does that description square with what Papadopoulos, Mifsud, and Downer told the FBI?

After nearly two years of collusion banter, Congress needs to find out which of these accounts is closer to the truth.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/george-papadopoulos-case-needs-closer-look/