+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Deep ZOG Shall Try to Mount a Coup Against the God-Emperor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Deep ZOG Shall Try to Mount a Coup Against the God-Emperor

    Deep ZOG Shall Try to Mount a Coup Against the God-Emperor


    This year is the year that Deep ZOG shall try to mount a coup against the God-Emperor Donald John Trump -- if the First Kenyan allows itself to be chucked out liike the funky monkey itz.

    This scheming is going to occur regardless of the fact that one-third of the popjewlation wants the God-Emperor to make ZOG Grate Agin' or merely to look at and hear the kikes & mamzers & faggots & perverts & gliberal whiggers scream and bitch a lot indefinitely. This one-third of the ZOG popjewlation consists of White Men who are the only ones who do anything productive and get shit done and when or if the God Emperor is chucked out on whatever pretext we will use that as an excuse to engage in civil war and to kill all the jews and mongrels and faggots and run off the rest from our Ten Thousand Warlords broke-back ZOGland.

    So this is the thread in 2017 to look at the scheming, pissing and moaning because the God-Emperor/Dog-Humperor ain't going to go quietly.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations of Missouri

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Team Obama attempted ‘stealth coup’ by undermining Trump

    Team Obama attempted ‘stealth coup’ by undermining Trump

    By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times -
    Tuesday, December 5, 2017


    jewboy Andrew Weikss-mamzer (right) and yenta-skank lawyeress and some whigger FiBbIe are members of special counsel
    Robert Mueller's team of prostitutors investigating mythical ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
    Mr. Weissmann has made it clear several times that as a ZOGling jewboy it is not on the President's side.

    From the moment Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination and then the presidency, national security officials under President Obama have shown themselves to be intense adversaries in public and behind the scenes.

    In the latest development, special counsel Robert Mueller’s top-gun prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, praised acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a Trump nemesis, for refusing a White House order to defend the president’s travel ban on Muslim-majority countries, according to internal emails.

    Mr. Weissmann made it clear whose side he was on.

    “I am so proud,” Mr. Weissmann wrote to Ms. Yates when he was the head of the Obama Justice Department’s criminal fraud division. “And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respect.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court this week approved Mr. Trump’s travel ban of targeted nations in a 7-2 ruling.

    Mr. Weissmann, who as a private lawyer donated to Mr. Obama and to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, another Democrat, now is Mr. Mueller’s right-hand man. He oversaw the investigation of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, including a pre-dawn FBI raid on his condo and an in-bed frisking of his wife.

    The Weissmann emails and others from Obama political appointees praising Ms. Yates were unearthed in a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch.

    Mr. Trump fired Ms. Yates as she became a hero to Mr. Weissmann and other liberals.

    The anti-Trump moves by Obama aides began in July 2016 during his campaign for the presidency.

    Then-FBI Director James B. Comey began a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, in whole or part, based on a dossier financed by the Democratic Party with an aim to destroy the Republican candidate. Its salacious and sometimes far-fetched scenarios of Russia-Trump collusion on the Russian hack of Democratic Party computers have not been confirmed publicly.

    The top FBI investigator at that time was a “never Trump” advocate whom Mr. Mueller removed from his team last summer, The New York Times reported.

    John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s CIA director and former campaign adviser, pushed the investigation during the campaign. He supplied Mr. Comey with the names of Russians with whom Trump associates had made any type of contact. Mr. Brennan testified to Congress that he provided the list of referrals without knowing what was discussed.

    James R. Clapper, Mr. Obama’s director of national intelligence, has suggested that Mr. Trump is on the way out and calls him unfit for office.

    “I really question his … fitness to be in this office,” Mr. Clapper told CNN after a fiery Trump speech in August. “And I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out.”

    Conservatives suspect all this has happened as Obama administration holdovers and former aides were working to sabotage the Trump administration.

    ‘A stealth coup’

    Some news stories attributed to “former” government officials — read, Obama — have fallen into the “fake news” category. Journalists and Democrats are determined to show that Trump aides and Moscow collaborated.

    A major New York Times story on Feb. 14 based in part on “former American officials” did much to fuel this narrative.

    “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials,” The Times story read.

    Almost the entire story was wrong, according to Mr. Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence four months later. In other words, there were no such “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence.

    Mr. Comey testified that he was so taken aback by the story that he immediately notified senior members of Congress that it was not true.

    Another story that seemed to rise up from Obama holdovers was the narrative that Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey in May because the FBI director had asked for more resources for a Russia-Trump investigation. Several senior Justice Department officials said no such request was made. Mr. Comey has not made that charge.

    “Having experienced a change in administration while at the Pentagon in 2009, it’s not uncommon to see passive-aggressive behavior from a handful of outgoing folks,” said J.D. Gordon, a former Defense Department spokesman and Trump campaign national security adviser. “That said, based on the flood of leaks across the government, what we’re seeing today more closely resembles a stealth coup. Certainly nothing passive about it.”

    Mr. Brennan has not shied away from depicting Mr. Trump as an awful president or disclosing his own role in driving the FBI to investigate Mr. Trump during the campaign.

    “I wanted to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the [FBI] so that they could take it,” Mr. Brennan told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in May. “It was well beyond my mandate as director of CIA to follow on any of those leads that involved U.S. persons. But I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the bureau.

    “I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred,” the former CIA chief testified.

    During the presidential transition, Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, became suspicious of Mr. Brennan’s behind-the-scenes maneuvers. He said on ABC News: “There should be an investigation of what the Russians did but also an investigation of John Brennan and the hit job he seems to be orchestrating against the president-elect.”

    To date, there has been no public confirmation of Trump-Russia election collusion charges.

    Any doubts that Mr. Obama’s CIA actively opposed Mr. Trump were perhaps dispelled by former acting Director Michael Morell. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in stark language in response to Mr. Trump’s comments as a candidate applauding Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,” Mr. Morell said.

    Curious Comey actions

    Indeed, many Republicans expressed dismay at Mr. Trump’s praise of Mr. Putin, who has invaded eastern Ukraine, annexed the Crimean Peninsula and viewed NATO as an existential threat as he tries to destabilize Western democracies.

    They also cringe at the president’s habitual Twitter feeds that often veer from policy and toward personal disputes with people in the media, Hollywood and sports.

    Still, the machinations of Mr. Obama’s national security team seem to be unprecedented against a candidate, president-elect and president.

    The FBI used the discredited dossier at least once to obtain a warrant to bug former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. Mr. Page said the collusion and bribery charges made by dossier writer Christopher Steele, a former British spy, are fiction. They ruined his investment business, he told the House intelligence committee.

    “After over a year of false rhetoric and propaganda, it’s now refreshing that the real truth about what actually happened last year is starting to come to light,” Mr. Page told The Washington Times.

    Other assaults on Mr. Trump: Mr. Comey elevated the dossier’s importance by briefing the president-elect at Trump Tower in New York City. Shortly thereafter, the briefing was leaked to CNN.

    Mr. Comey wrote contemporaneous memos about his meetings with Mr. Trump and then leaked them to The New York Times via a middleman.

    Then there is “unmasking,” the procedure in which senior national security figures may ask the intelligence community to disclose the names of Americans caught up in the eavesdropping of foreign agents.

    Obama national security aides requested the unmasking of an undetermined number of Trump associates during the campaign, suggesting to Republicans that they were spying.

    Obama people also have floated the talking point that the Trump campaign team violated the 1799 Logan Act by talking policy with Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak during the transition.

    When The Washington Post wrote, based on top-secret intercepts, in February that retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn had spoken about sanctions against Moscow with Mr. Kislyak, the story brought up the obscure Logan Act as a possible violation.

    Rarely if ever enforced, the Logan Act bars private citizens from urging foreign countries to oppose U.S. policies. The Trump transition, however, was not a private group but a government-funded agency.

    That transition conversation with Mr. Kislyak proved fatal. Flynn pleaded guilty last week to providing false statements to the FBI when he denied discussing sanctions.

    To Republicans, one of the most curious decisions by Mr. Comey was not to seize the Democratic Party computer servers hacked by two Russian cybercells. Instead, in one of the most important criminal investigations ever, Mr. Comey left it up to the private firm CrowdStrike to conduct a cybersecurity investigation and report to the FBI.

    CrowdStrike employs former FBI agents and is funded in part by Google, a strong Democratic Party supporter.

    If the Obama national security state declared war on Mr. Trump, it seems the FBI waged peace with Mrs. Clinton during the probe into her handling of classified material on her home email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

    Mr. Comey, the Senate Judiciary Committee discovered, wrote an exoneration statement months before the investigation was concluded, even before interviewing the Democratic candidate.

    CNN reported that Peter Strzok, the anti-Trump counterintelligence agent kicked off the Mueller probe, had a hand in changing the statement to lessen her culpability.

    The draft wording was changed from “grossly negligent” — which is the legal definition of mishandling classified information — to “extremely careless,” the words Mr. Comey uttered at the exoneration press conference.

    Mr. Comey downplayed the significance of Mrs. Clinton having her attorneys destroy about 30,000 emails with the app BleachBit. The FBI was able to reconstruct some those deleted emails, which showed they, too, contained classified information.

    Mr. Mueller fired Mr. Strzok after the discovery of text messages between him and his lover, Lisa Page, a lawyer and aide to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, The Washington Post reported.

    Mr. McCabe has come under criticism from Republicans for his own possible conflict of interest.

    During the Clinton email investigation, his wife ran a losing campaign for the Virginia state Senate in 2015. She took a $467,000 donation from the political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton family confidant.

    I am The Librarian

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Embattled FBI admits it can’t verify dossier claims of Russia, Trump campaign collusion

    Embattled FBI admits it can’t verify dossier claims of Russia, Trump campaign collusion

    by Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times
    - Monday, December 25, 2017


    FiBbIe faggot goes ass-to-mouth with Obongo Attorney She-boon Loretta Lynch to spy on Trump using Hillary's "Pissgate Dossier" on July 20, 2016

    The FBI is declining to repudiate the Russia dossier on which it partially relied to start an investigation into the Trump campaign, but it concedes the document’s major core charges of election collusion remain unsubstantiated.

    Sources familiar with House and Senate investigations say this is the FBI’s dossier talking point 17 months after agents were first briefed in July 2016 as Donald Trump battled Hillary Clinton for the White House.

    The most recent FBI witness was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who spent nearly eight hours last week in a closed session before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Republicans believe they have unearthed a scandal inside the bureau’s top echelons over its determination to target Trump associates based on flimsy evidence and improper Justice Department contacts.

    Republican committee members pressed Mr. McCabe about a dossier that was financed by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign based on gossip-tinged information from paid, unidentified Kremlin operatives.

    Mr. McCabe declined to criticize the dossier’s 35 pages of salacious and criminal charges against Donald Trump and his aides, but he said it remains largely unverified, according to a source familiar with ongoing congressional inquiries.

    Sources speculated to The Washington Times that it would be embarrassing for Mr. McCabe to condemn a political opposition research paper on which his agents based decisions to open a counterintelligence investigation and interview witnesses. Some press reports said the FBI cited the dossier’s information in requests for court-approved wiretaps.

    The Washington Post reported Saturday that Mr. McCabe plans to retire early next year.

    Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz is investigating whether Mr. McCabe should have recused himself from the Clinton email investigation in 2015 and 2016. Mr. McCabe’s wife, an unsuccessful 2015 Democratic candidate for Virginia state Senate, received more than $700,000 in campaign donations from two PACs, one of which was controlled by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally.

    Mr. Horowitz announced the investigation shortly before Mr. Trump took office. Since then, his probe has widened into whether the FBI investigation into suspected Trump-Russia collusion is rigged.

    It centers on the FBI’s Peter Strzok, the lead agent in the Trump case until special counsel Robert Mueller fired him in July. The reason: He sent a number of text messages ridiculing Mr. Trump to Lisa Page, his FBI lover. He texted about a meeting with “Andy” — apparently Mr. McCabe — in which it was discussed that Mr. Trump had no chance of winning, but there was a risk he might.

    “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok said in August 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

    The dossier’s author, former British spy Christopher Steele, bragged to Mother Jones magazine in October 2016 that he successfully urged the FBI to begin investigating the Trump team based on his memos. Republicans have ridiculed the bureau for trusting a paid agent of the Clinton campaign.

    Fox News and the Washington Examiner reported that Republicans asked what parts of the dossier the FBI had confirmed. Mr. McCabe said the only substantiated collusion-related incident was that Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016.

    The answer surprised Republicans: Mr. Page’s trip to deliver a speech at a university was widely publicized at the time.

    An FBI spokesman declined to comment on Mr. McCabe’s testimony because it was given during a closed hearing.

    What is unfolding for the House intelligence committee is an investigation that has broadened from supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

    Driven by Chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican, the committee is examining the following:

    • Who funded the dossier and how its information was spread by paymaster Fusion GPS and then used by the FBI.

    • The Obama administration’s “unmasking” of the identities of private citizens caught up in surveillance of foreigners.

    • Recent misconduct inside the Department of Justice and the FBI.

    For months, Mr. Nunes repeatedly pressed the Justice Department to explain why Mr. Mueller fired his top FBI agent, Mr. Strzok. Eventually, Justice turned over text messages showing Mr. Strzok’s deep biases toward the man he was investigating, Mr. Trump.

    The committee also unearthed the fact that senior Justice attorney Bruce Ohr made contact with Mr. Steele during the presidential campaign and that Mr. Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS at the time it was investigating the Trump campaign’s Russia ties. The Justice Department stripped Mr. Ohr of one of his two portfolios.

    Most recently, The Washington Post reported that James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel and a close associate of fired FBI Director James B. Comey, was being transferred. Politico reported that Mr. Baker during the election had contact with the Mother Jones reporter who interviewed Mr. Steele via Skype and gave much credence to his dossier.

    “This is really problematic for the FBI and DOJ right now,” said the source familiar with the congressional investigations. “They realize stonewalling is not going to work anymore, but they haven’t decided on a new strategy to manage the deluge of information spilling out about top officials’ conflicts of interest, their use of the Steele dossier and their own connections to Fusion GPS.”

    Mr. Comey took to his Twitter account Friday night to lament Mr. Baker’s fate.

    “Sadly, we are now at a point in our political life when anyone can be attacked for partisan gain,” Mr. Comey tweeted. “James Baker, who is stepping down as FBI General Counsel, served our country incredibly well for 25 years & deserves better. He is what we should all want our public servants to be.”

    I am The Librarian

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Fusion GPS, firm behind disputed Russia dossier, retracts its claim of FBI mole in Trump camp

    Fusion GPS, firm behind disputed Russia dossier, retracts its claim of FBI mole in Trump camp

    By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times
    - Saturday, January 13, 2018


    Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS founder who sponsored the unverified anti-Trump dossier, claimed in August and again Jan. 2 that the FBI has a source inside the Trump camp who lent credence to the document.

    When a transcript of his secret August testimony was released on Tuesday, news headlines immediately latched onto the disclosure as a boon to a dossier whose core charges of Donald Trump-Russia collusion have been denied and not confirmed publicly.

    Then suddenly, as quick as the headlines went up, some one close to Fusion was waving off reporters. Mr. Simpson had “mischaracterized” the source. It was not some one on the Trump inside, but apparently an Australian diplomat.

    He was featured in a Dec. 30 New York Times story as the source who tipped off the FBI. Campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos told him over drinks that a Russian-linked professor knew of “thousands” of Hillary Clinton emails in the hands of Moscow.

    How Mr. Simpson knew of the diplomat last August was unclear. He would have known of him in January when he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he again told of an insider source.

    “As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp,” he wrote.

    Moments after Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, unilaterally released the transcript, the inside-source story spread, especially in London. The city is home base of Christopher Steele, the ex-British spy who wrote the dossier.

    In his testimony, Mr. Simpson told of Mr. Steele’s meeting with FBI agents in Rome in September 2016. Mr. Steele told Mother Jones magazine he was trying to jump-start an investigation into President Trump.

    Mr. Simpson testified, “Essentially what he told me was they had other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source and that — that they — my understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

    “It was someone like us who decided to pick up the phone and report something,” added Mr. Simpson, who said this person was not a Steele source, but an FBI one.

    Hours after the transcript’s release, the corrections started.

    “A source close to Fusion GPS tells me there was no walk-in source––that was a mischaracterization by Simpson of the Australian diplomat tip about Papadopoulis [sic],” tweeted NBC reporter Ken Dilanian.Whether the source the FBI supposedly told Mr. Steele about could be Mr. Papadopoulos is doubtful. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about issues surrounding his contacts with the professor. The criminal complain says the FBI did not interview him until January 2017, three months after Mr. Steele met with the agents in Rome.The story corrections correction caught the eye of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican, who on Thursday sent off a letter to Fusion attorney Joshua Levy. Mr. Grassley demanded to know why Mr. Levy did not correct the record after spending hours reviewing the transcript in October and November or contact the committee last Tuesday.” If it is true that your client’s statement to the Committee was a mischaracterization, why did you not attempt to correct your client’s statement as soon as you and/or he realized it was not accurate?” the senator wrote. Mr. Levy did not return a message seeking comment.
    Mr. Simpson at first requested a private interview with committee staff instead of an opening hearing. Later, he demanded the panel release the transcript, which Mrs. Feinstein did.

    The dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The money went from them to a D.C. law firm to Fusion to Mr. Steele.

    I am The Librarian

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default New York court breaks rules, refuses investigation into James Comey

    New York court breaks rules, refuses investigation into James Comey

    By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, January 18, 2018


    Former FBI Director James Comey recounts a series of conversations with President Donald Trump as he testifies
    before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 8, 2017.


    The New York courts have refused to pursue an investigation against former FBI Director James B. Comey and several other major figures involved in the Clinton email scandal, seemingly breaking their own rules in the process.

    Ty Clevenger, a lawyer, had filed grievances against Mr. Comey and three others saying they violated fundamental rules of lawyers’ ethics by the way they handled the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

    The New York grievance commission, in a letter dated earlier this month, rejected all of the complaints without comment.

    Under the commission’s own rules, it is supposed to provide “a brief description of the basis for the determination,” so the move to dismiss the grievances without any reason was striking.

    “The independent review has now taken place and I have been formally advised that the committee decided not to proceed further with your complaints,” Jorge Dopico, the chief attorney for the disciplinary committee’s first judicial department, said in the Jan. 9 letter.

    “Accordingly, we cannot be of further assistance in these matters,” he concluded.

    Neither the committee nor Mr. Dopico responded to requests for comment submitted by The Washington Times.

    Mr. Clevenger had asked for investigations into Mr. Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, top Clinton family lawyer David E. Kendall and Beth A. Wilkinson, who served as lawyer for Mrs. Clinton’s top aides in the department.

    In the case of Mr. Comey, Mr. Clevenger says he broke ethics rules by apparently leaking classified information to a professor and friend of his in order to shape the narrative surrounding his interactions with and later firing by President Trump.

    “I’m disgusted but not surprised that a grievance committee would try to whitewash serious crimes by politically-powerful colleagues,” Mr. Clevenger said after receiving New York’s rejection. “I’ve seen it all over the country, in Republican and Democratic jurisdictions alike. If you are a lawyer with the right political connections, you can get away with almost anything.”

    “Regardless of who they represent or how powerful they are, attorneys should not be permitted to destroy evidence, lie to Congress, or obstruct justice with impunity,” he said.

    Mr. Clevenger has been fighting uphill battles in forums other than New York.

    He won an initial round in Maryland, with a judge ordering the grievance commission to pursue an investigation. But the Democratic-controlled state appealed and the matter will be taken up in March at the state’s Court of Appeals.

    Another challenge is pending in Arkansas against Mrs. Clinton, where Mr. Clevenger filed his grievance Sept. 1, 2016. He said the chief investigator there, a Democrat, refused to take action for nearly a year, then rejected the request, then forwarded it to a review committee where it’s now sat for four more months.

    He said he’s planning to sue to force action there unless the committee acts soon.


    I am The Librarian

  6. #6
    Fatt Parrott's Avatar
    Fatt Parrott is offline Fat Hoosier Intellectual Ass-Clown Member Fatt Parrott has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Going ass-to-mouth with bigger swinging intellectual dicks

    Default The Deep State Throws a Tantrum

    The Deep State Throws a Tantrum

    Matt Parrott, 4 Feb 2018


    The-m-asses ZOGbots


    One of the things I did before I began doing public nationalist work is I read extensively about intelligence work. It’s important to know how these people who are literally out to get you are thinking. I highly recommend Man Without a Face by (((Markus Wolf))), the head of the East German stasi. He describes the intrinsically and intensely political nature of modern intelligence work, with much of what occurred in the final decades of the Soviet Empire eerily mirroring what’s taking place right now in the American Empire. I also recommend The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, the first director of the CIA. This volume surveys both the theory of intelligence and its application (or misapplication) in the early years of the agency.

    We nationalists must be mindful at all times about intelligence work, because the intelligence community makes no distinction whatsoever between a born and bred American citizen speaking up against anti-white bias and a recent Eritrean immigrant promoting radical Islamic doctrines and stockpiling weaponry. If anything, the ease of infiltrating White American social circles and rampant political correctness ensure that the vast majority of resources pumped into intelligence on the pretense of fighting actual terrorism get wasted infiltrating, observing, and interfering with perfectly legal domestic opposition to this unaccountable police state.

    Predictably, the FBI is throwing a tantrum about the Nunes Memo, acting like a cheating wife who’s feigning outrage at your having invaded her privacy. One special agent has even left the bureau in a huff, with a whiny screed: “Why I Am Leaving the F.B.I.” How many more wikileaks, memos, and bungled operations must Americans tolerate before we conclude that the intelligence community has become an undisciplined and unaccountable power behind the visible government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe-pig Bitch
    F.B.I. agents are dogged people who do not care about the direction of political winds. But to succeed in their work, they need public backing. Scorched-earth attacks from politicians with partisan goals now threaten that support, raising corrosive doubts about the integrity of the F.B.I. that could last for generations.

    Most Americans haven’t been through what we’ve been through. Up until Charlottesville, I had no criminal record. And even that misdemeanor charge is for having gone on a walk in a park after a federal judge explicitly granted me permission to do so. Yet I am forced at every turn to think and behave like I’m operating a crime syndicate because the intelligence community has concluded that White Nationalism exists in a gray area where it’s not technically illegal but they can perpetually harass and intimidate us.

    Before, during, and after Charlottesville, law enforcement–assuredly acting in constant contact and collaboration with intelligence “experts”–made life hard for us. The cops treated us like criminals as we earnestly attempted to coordinate the planning for the event, actively sabotaging our attempt to coordinate a safe and peaceful event. During the event, the cops directed us into the crowd of hostile antifa, forcing us to fight. Then after we had successfully fought through them, they turned us around and required us to fight our way back out. After the event, they arrested our side–and only our side–for defending ourselves. Then they have the nerve to act surprised that they’re not trusted.

    The FBI can’t be bothered to investigate the proven conspiracy by the City of Charlottesville to deny us our permitted speech, …probably because they’re too busy on their snipe hunt for Trump’s Russian hackers and foreign backers.

    We know that any lists or information we host at standard Internet services are subject to intelligence community backdoors, …backdoors that will be exploited to gather information on ourselves. This corrupt intelligence community works hand-in-glove with the big tech oligopolies–Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, and Twitter (FAGATs)–to spy on and interfere with what little social networking activity the multinational corporations haven’t denied us yet.

    We’re dogged by the fear that anybody who shows up might be an informant, and their informants are eager to prosecute our entire organizations for even the most remote of associations. The FBI’s well-documented habit of peeling off peripheral members, entrapping them, then bringing down the entire organization, makes it so that we can’t find comfort in knowing that infiltrators won’t find any criminal conspiracy afoot. There’s no daylight between the federal intelligence community and actively hostile private intelligence-gathering networks like the ADL and the SPLC.

    And, of course, you have foolish nationalists like weev who exploit this fear, uncertainty, and doubt to their benefit, suggesting that Richard Spencer, myself, and anybody else in the crosshairs is probably a fed or agent of some kind. And who can blame those who believe him? With the millions and millions dedicated to targeting pro-White activism in America, the money and effort has to be going somewhere, right?

    The critical thinking skills required to navigate this labyrinth of hypothetical schemes overclocks even the most grounded and intelligent of men. In my own work, I’m routinely working against cleverness. Our vain habit of assuming that we’re always in on the joke and our desperation to be an “insider” in some fashion sets us up to be repeatedly misdirected and exploited by more pragmatic actors. As a faction, we’re better off playing to our strengths of honesty and idealism than trying to be more intelligent than intelligence, more dishonest than career politicians, and more cunning than the Jews.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe-pig Bitch
    When the F.B.I. knocks on someone’s door or appeals to the public for assistance in solving crime, the willingness of people to help is directly correlated to their opinion of the agency.

    They act like it’s Trump’s or the conservative media’s fault that I don’t trust the feds to draw the line between bad actors and legitimate dissidents. Nearly a decade ago, I attempted to host a David Irving event. The antifa threw a brick through the window with a death threat against me taped to the note. I had done everything right, and was the target of political terrorism in black and white. When I attempted to relocate to a secondary venue, the FBI had tipped off the local police, who showed up to escort me and my attendees from the premises.

    When I showed up to be interviewed by the state police the following week, I assumed, naively, that they were there for help apprehending the violent leftists. They were not. They had brought the FBI with them to talk about my organization, our links to Irving, and other bullshit that had nothing to do with the active terrorist threats against myself. I excused myself, half-expecting to be arrested right there in the McDonald’s. That’s my experience, and this FBI agent wants to cry about “partisan republicans” pretending that his agency is a hyper-politicized and highly dangerous farce?


    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe Pig-Bitch
    When an agent working to stop a terrorist plot attempts to recruit an informant, the agent’s success in gathering critical intelligence depends on the informant’s belief that the agent is credible and trustworthy.

    We can assume that at least a handful of the criminal activities carried out by nationalists who (accurately) conclude that this state will not allow legitimate dissent would not have happened without their constant targeting and jamming of our legitimate dissent. You can also be sure that the community would be far more cooperative in helping them isolate the mentally ill and deranged actors if they didn’t habitually attempt to tie us to those cases and hang us all. The intelligence community actively makes this country less safe than if there were no intelligence community at all with their destabilization, radicalization, isolation, and entrapment tactics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe Pig-Bitch
    Do F.B.I. agents make mistakes? You bet. They are human beings.

    The agent coyly admits fault in the FBI, but refuses to believe there’s any systemic corruption or political motive in the bureau’s work. He also asserts that the incestuous internal “checks and balances” (proven to be bullshit by the Nunes Memo) are more than sufficient to guarantee that this problem couldn’t possibly happen…

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe Pig-Bitch
    Because they are not infallible, the bureau is subject to a robust system of checks and balances, including its internal affairs division, the Department of Justice inspector general, congressional committees and the courts. These watchdogs ensure that personal opinions regarding politics, causes and candidates do not affect investigations.

    Every criticism of the Deep State is just “partisan politics” to this guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe Pig-Bitch
    There is, however, a difference between oversight by those in charge of holding the F.B.I. accountable and criticism by politicians seeking partisan gain. Political operatives are weaponizing their disagreement with a particular investigation in a bid to undermine the credibility of the entire institution.

    I’m no fan of Trump or the Republican Party, but it’s not “partisan politics” for the GOP to draw attention to the fact that Hillary’s loyalists in the intelligence community bought a sham investigation of the opposing party’s candidate, a sham which is still actively underway with Mueller’s investigation of the Trump Administration. For the past two years, the Democrats (and GOP insiders) have been working hand-in-glove with the intelligence community’s “investigations” of Trump alongside their transparent and reflexive absolution of Hillary for any and all wrongdoing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe Pig-Bitch
    The assumption among confused and dismayed F.B.I. employees is that the attacks are meant to soften the blow should the investigation by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, lead to additional charges. However, these kinds of attacks by powerful people go beyond mere criticism — they could destroy the institution.

    Good. Destroy the institution. America’s intelligence community ought to be radically restructured, including the complete dissolution and reorganization of the agencies with an entirely different approach to transparency and accountability. For decades, American citizens have just been taking the word of this guy and others that while they do have unlimited resources and zero public oversight, they’re only doing “good things” and chasing after “bad guys.”

    If you go down the street right now and ask a dozen random people if they’re more afraid of their federal government or terrorists, they’ll tell you that they’re more afraid of the former. It’s been that way for years, and it has nothing to do with the Trump Administration trying to shake off Hillary’s baseless zombie investigation of imaginary Kremlin forces behind Trump’s populist political victory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiney FiBbIe Pig-Bitch
    If those critics of the agency persuade the public that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation less safe.

    The FBI cannot be trusted. The CIA cannot be trusted. The DHS cannot be trusted. The NSA cannot be trusted. Nobody trusts them anymore, and I’m glad that the same contempt for these dishonest and unaccountable weasels that I learned from direct experience with them a decade ago is no longer a fringe position. Americans across the political spectrum are losing faith in this government and its institutions because the institutions are profoundly corrupt, self-righteous, and unaccountable to the citizenry. Whether or not Trump honors his mandate, his election was a clear sign that the people are seeking an outsider powerful and forceful enough to “drain the swamp” and its deep state political actors.


    Trad Yoot ZOGbots, cum-cum, cum-cum!!!



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Somewhere in a burrow furrow

    Default Democrats: Steele dossier only ‘narrow’ part of FBI surveillance application

    Democrats: Steele dossier only ‘narrow’ part of FBI surveillance application

    By Jeff Mordock, Seth McLaughlin and Stephen Dinan
    - The Washington Times -- Saturday, February 24, 2018


    A Democratic-funded opposition research dossier was only a “narrow” part of the FBI’s justification for obtaining a warrant to spy on a former Trump campaign official, congressional Democrats said in their long-awaited memo, finally released Saturday, detailing the process that led to the snooping.

    The new memo says the FBI had opened a counterinvestigation into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia even before it obtained the so-called Steele dossier, a salacious and largely unverified document produced by a former British spy with funding from the Democratic National Committee.

    The memo says ex-Trump aide Carter Page was targeted for recruitment by a Russian operative at a date that’s redacted from the document, and efforts to recruit Mr. Page continued.

    The contacts were so striking that the FBI interviewed Mr. Page in March 2016, at about the time he was taking a role in the Trump campaign — though surveillance on him didn’t begin until months later, after he’d left the campaign.

    But many of the key details justifying the surveillance are redacted from the memo, so the extent of the evidence beyond the Steele dossier is not clear.

    House intelligence committee ranking member Adam Schiff, California Democrat, said surveillance of Mr. Page produced “valuable intelligence” — though the evidence for that, too, is redacted.

    Perhaps most important to the ongoing dispute over Christopher Steele and his dossier, the memo says that the Justice Department not only didn’t conceal his background and potential bias, but laid it all out for the judges on the secret court who approved the warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

    The memo quotes from the application: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person [who funded the dossier] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Mr. Trump]’s campaign.”

    Mr. Schiff said the memo should “put to rest” the issues Republicans raised over the way the Obama administration obtained, and the Trump Justice Department continued, surveillance on Mr. Page.

    “Our extensive review of the initial FISA application and three subsequent renewals failed to uncover any evidence of illegal, unethical, or unprofessional behavior by law enforcement and instead revealed that both the FBI and DOJ made extensive showings to justify all four requests,” Mr. Schiff said.

    The White House had rejected an original version of the Schiff memo, saying it revealed too much classified information that could give away key intelligence sources and methods. On Saturday, the White House approved the redacted version that was then quickly released.

    White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders still called the new memo “politically driven.”

    “The FISA judge was never informed that Hillary Clinton and the DNC funded the dossier that was a basis for the Department of Justice’s FISA application. In addition, the Minority’s memo fails to even address the fact that the Deputy FBI Director told the Committee that had it not been for the dossier, no surveillance order would have been sought,” Ms. Sanders said.

    That last point was a reference to testimony the former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, who according to Republicans told the intelligence committee last year that the dossier was critical to their case. Democrats have said that is a mischaracterization.

    Mr. Trump has repeatedly and forcefully denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia.

    Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the intelligence committee, told activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the Democratic memo was “clear evidence that Democrats are not only trying to cover this up but they are also colluding with parts of the government to help cover this up.”

    He also said the Schiff memo didn’t undercut any of the original GOP memo.

    “What you will basically read in the Democratic memo — they are advocating that it is OK for the FBI and DOJ to use political dirt paid for by one campaign and use it against the other campaign, and I don’t care who you are, a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, in the United States of America that is unacceptable,” Mr. Nunes said.

    Mr. Nunes was at CPAC to accept an award for his role in heading the intelligence committee.

    The FBI first applied to the secret court for permission to snoop on Mr. Page on Oct. 21, 2016, and again in January 2017, April 2017 and June 2017. The surveillance continued through September. Both Obama and Trump administration officials at the Justice Department signed off on the requests.

    Mr. Page was no longer with the Trump campaign at the time of that first warrant application.

    Conservatives in law enforcement had blasted the Justice Department for failing to disclose to the FISA Court credibility concerns over Mr. Steele and the dossier.

    The Democratic memo challenges that notion, however. It claimed the Justice Department told the court Mr. Steele had been paid by political opponents to obtain “derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.”

    It also said the Justice Department disclosed that Mr. Steele was a paid FBI informant who was later fired leaking his role with the bureau to the media.

    The Justice Department also said it found Mr. Steele credible, despite those concerns. Mr. Steele’s “history of credibility reporting on Russia” and the reliability of those claims, are among the reasons the FBI viewed him as a strong source.

    “The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele’s reporting, including with regard to Page,” according to the memo.


    I'm Little Butt I'm Loud!!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Congress releases redacted, declassified Democratic memo

    Congress releases redacted, declassified Democratic memo

    The Idiot Republicucks let the Demoncrats peddle theys' self-serving lies that the FBI secret piglice are not as corrupt and stupid as everyone knows they are.

    Associated Press February 24, 2018


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Two weeks after President Donald Trump blocked the full release of a classified Democratic memo because it really did reveal real secrets that Swillery didn't already sell to the Saudis and the Chinks, the House intelligence committee published a redacted largely fraudulent version of the document that aims to counter a narrative that Republicans on the committee have promoted for months — that the FBI and Justice Department conspired against Trump as they investigated his self-admitted non-existent ties to Russia.

    The Democratic memo's release on Saturday was the latest development in an extraordinary back and forth between Republicans and Democrats about the credibility of not only the multiple inquiries into links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but also about the integrity of the nation's top law enforcement agencies. The Swillery "Resistance" has to rely on Deep-State Secret Piglice to maintain the fiction that ZOGling whiggers couldn't figure out that The-Old-Crooked-Stinking-Cunt wasn't trying to buy the 2016 [S]Election and that The Russkis were somehow complicit in revealinmg what everyone knew full well.

    The Democratic document attempts to undercut and add coontext to some of the main points from a declassified Republican memo that was released earlier this month. In that memo, Republicans took aim at the FBI and the Justice Department over the use of information compiled by British spy Christopher Steele in obtaining a secret warrant created out of thin air by corrupt FBI agents to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

    The GOP memo included the assertion that the FBI obtained a surveillance warrant without disclosing that Steele's anti-Trump research was funded by Democrat Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Thus the only real Russian meddling was as part of a contract between The-Old-Crooked-Stinking-Cunt and the Democrats as a means of stealing the 2016 [S]Election.

    The Democratic memo counters that the Justice Department disclosed "the assessed political motivation of those who hired him" and that Steele was likely hired by someone "looking for information that could be used to discredit" then-candidate Trump's campaign. But not The-Old-Crooked-Stinking-Cunt and the Democrats who actually paid for the fraudulent memo and their Loretta Lynch Attorney Nigger-General jewtice Department and Crooked Jim Comey's Fumbling Bumbling Idiots (FBI).

    Republicans say that is not enough, since the Clinton campaign and the DNC were not named even though they were the criminals who used espionage to try to hack the 2016 [S]Election.. Trump himself seized on this point in a tweet Saturday evening: "Dem Memo: FBI did not disclose who the clients were - the Clinton Campaign and the DNC. Wow!"

    The White House had objected to the Democratic memo's release, citing national security concerns on Feb. 9. That sent the Democrats back to negotiations with the FBI, which approved a redacted version which covered up their incompetence and corruption on Saturday. It was then declassified and released.

    Trump had no such concerns about the GOP memo, which he declassified in full on Feb. 2 over strong objections from the FBI about the memo's accuracy as it was spot on.

    The Democratic memo asserts that the FBI's concerns about Page long predate the Swillery commissioned fraudulent compilation of memos drafted by Steele, now known as the Trump-Russia "dossier," and that the Obongo government's fraudulent application to monitor Page's communications details suspicious activities he undertook during the 2016 presidential campaign. That includes a July 2016 trip to Moscow in which he gave a university commencement address which is largely irrelevant.

    The memo also contends that the Justice Department provided "additional information from multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting" in the dossier. Most of the details of the corroborated information are redacted but they do appear to reference Page's meeting with Russian officials. The memo says that the Justice Department didn't include any "salacious allegations" about Trump paying prostitutes to piss on him in the nigger-cootie infested bed used by Obongo contained in the Steele dossier in the Obongo government's fraudulent application to seek a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

    The memo also details Russian attempts to cultivate Page as a spy. It cites a federal indictment of two Russian spies who allegedly targeted Page for recruitment and notes that the FBI interviewed him based on those suspicions in March 2016.

    The Democrats say the FBI made "made only narrow use of Steele's sources" in the government's FISA application for Page.

    Republicans say that is still too much.

    "Again, the fact the minority cannot outright deny that a DNC/Clinton funded document was used to wiretap an American is extremely concerning," the Republican National Committee said in a statement.

    Trump has said the GOP memo "vindicates" him in the ongoing Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. But congressional Democrats and Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who helped draft the GOP memo, have said it shouldn't be used to undermine the special counsel.

    Partisan disagreements on the intelligence committee have escalated over the last year as Democrats have charged that Republicans aren't taking the panel's investigation into Russian election meddling seriously enough. They say the GOP memo is designed as a distraction from the probe, which is looking into whether Trump's campaign was in any way connected to the Russian interference.

    Republicans say they are just alerting the public to abuses they say they've uncovered at the Justice Department and FBI.

    The top Democrat on the intelligence panel, California Rep. Adam Schiff, said Saturday that the memo should "put to rest any concerns that the American people might have" as to the conduct of the FBI, the Justice Department and the court that issued the secret warrant.

    The review "failed to uncover any evidence of illegal, unethical, or unprofessional behavior by law enforcement," he said.

    White House press secretary Sarah Sanders disagreed. She said that Trump supported the redacted release of the memo in the interest of transparency, but "nevertheless, this politically driven document fails to answer serious concerns raised by the majority's memorandum about the use of partisan opposition research from one candidate, loaded with uncorroborated allegations, as a basis to ask a court to approve surveillance of a former associate of another candidate, at the height of a presidential campaign."

    There are some points of agreement between the GOP and Democratic memos, including that the FBI did not open its counterintelligence investigation into links between Russian election interference and the Trump campaign because of Steele's dossier.

    Instead, both memos show that the investigation was prompted by concerns about contacts between former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and people linked to Russia.

    So far, Mueller has charged nearly 20 people as part of his investigation. Three Trump associates have pleaded guilty — and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors — including Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign aide Rick Gates.


    Associated Press writers Eric Tucker, Tom LoBianco and Zeke Miller contributed to this report.


    Link to Democratic memo on government surveillance in Russia probe:


    Link to Republican memo on government surveillance in Russia probe:


    I am The Librarian

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default House Republicans say no evidence of collusion as they end Russia probe

    House Republicans say no evidence of collusion as they end Russia probe


    CNN -- Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee announced Monday they found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and that they are shutting down their yearlong investigation.

    The committee's Republicans are also disagreeing with the intelligence community's assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help the Trump campaign over Hillary Clinton, a notion that aligns with President Donald Trump's viewpoint on election meddling.

    The conclusions will be met with sharp disagreement from Democrats and are bound to inflame partisan tensions on a committee that's been beleaguered by partisanship throughout the course of its Russia probe.

    Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican leading the Russia investigation, said Monday that the committee had concluded its interviews for the Russia investigation, and the Republican staff had prepared a 150-page draft report that they would give to Democrats to review on Tuesday morning.

    "We found no evidence of collusion, and so we found perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings," Conaway said. "We found no evidence of any collusion of anything people were actually doing, other than taking a meeting they shouldn't have taken or just inadvertently being in the same building."

    Democrats say there are still scores of witnesses the committee should call, and argue that Republicans have failed to use subpoenas to obtain documents and require witnesses to answer questions that are central to the investigation.

    Conaway told reporters that he feels the committee has investigated all avenues it needed to probe, and he argued that the panel would not have been able to obtain the information Democrats were seeking had they gone the route of subpoenaing witnesses or trying to hold them in contempt.

    Conaway, for instance, said the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign officials and a Russian lawyer where dirt on Clinton was promised was "ill advised." But he said that the committee did not turn up any evidence of collusion, arguing the promoter who organized the meeting had exaggerated what the Russians would provide.

    The committee's report will conclude that they agree with 98% of the intelligence community's January 2017 assessment that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, according to a committee aide.

    But the panel's Republicans take issue with the key finding that Putin was trying get Trump elected. Conaway said it was clear the Russians were trying to sow discord in the 2016 US election, but Republicans did not establish the same conclusions as the CIA that they specifically were trying to help Trump.

    The committee's Russia investigation included interviews with 73 witnesses and a review of roughly 300,000 pages of documents, Conaway said. They included key figures like Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, but Democrats have argued that those witnesses failed to fully provide documents or answer important questions.

    Conaway said he hopes that Democrats can work with Republicans on the draft report, and he wants to take their feedback as they shape the final report. He declined to put a timeline on when the report would be made public, as the committee intends to submit it to the intelligence community for declassification beforehand.

    Conaway said Democrats will agree with some elements of the report, such as the social media interference, but he acknowledged they'd take issue with others.

    It's widely expected Democrats will draft their own report that argues a case for collusion, as well as spells out all the avenues the committee did not investigate.

    In addition to subpoenas and witnesses, Democrats have long raised issues about looking into Trump's finances, something the committee had not probed. Conaway said he saw no "link" between Trump's finances and the committee's investigation, and he did not want to go on a fishing expedition.

    The Republican report will also say how "anti-Trump research" made its way from Russian sources to the Clinton campaign through the opposition research dossier on Trump and Russia. Conaway, however, stopped short of saying there was "collusion" between Clinton's campaign and the Russians, something the President has alleged.

    The end of the Russia interviews is only the latest battleground on the House Intelligence Committee, which has been consumed by partisan fights for the better part of a year, from Chairman Devin Nunes' role in the investigation and more recently over competing memos about alleged surveillance abuses at the FBI during the Obama administration.

    Several Republicans on the panel have been signaling for several weeks now that they're ready for the Russia investigation to wrap up, arguing that Democrats are trying to extend the probe into the campaign season.

    "To me, I don't see anything else that's out there that hasn't been explored," Rep. Pete King, a New York Republican, told CNN last week.

    But Democrats say the committee has raced through its final interviews, while allowing witnesses to pick and choose which questions they answer.

    The committee issued a subpoena to former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon in January, but in his return testimony he still did not answer questions about his time in the White House.

    Democrats also sought subpoenas for the committee's last two witnesses, outgoing White House communications director Hope Hicks and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, but Republicans did not issue them.

    "There are a number of steps that I think any credible investigator would say, 'These need to be done,' and we still hope that they will be," Schiff said following Lewandowski's interview last week.

    There are still two committees in the Senate that are investigating Russia's 2016 election meddling: the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

    Still, only the Senate Intelligence Committee appears to be pushing forward at full speed on its probe, as Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is preparing to release transcripts of the committee's interviews with participants of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting — a potential sign the committee is done investigating that matter.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee is preparing to put out recommendations and hold a hearing on election security this month. Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr has said he's separating out the election security issues for the 2018 primary season while the committee continues to investigate questions about collusion and the 2016 election.

    I am The Librarian

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Is Fired 2 Days Before Retirement

    Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Is Fired 2 Days Before Retirement

    Carla Herreria HuffPost March 16, 2018


    Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI and a frequent target of President Donald Trump, was fired Friday, days before his formal retirement. The firing of McCabe, a civil servant who has been at the bureau for more than two decades, could significantly affect his pension.

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions made the decision to oust McCabe after the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended he be fired for his alleged lack of candor during an internal review of how the FBI and Justice Department handled an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe and his attorney met Thursday with Scott Schools, the highest-ranking career employee of the Justice Department, in an attempt to prevent the firing or at least save his ability to begin collecting a pension estimated at $60,000 a year.

    McCabe, a lifelong Republican, had officially stepped down from his post in late January but was using accrued leave to stay on the FBI’s payroll until his retirement date on Sunday, his 50th birthday. Being fired before his birthday means he’d have to wait several more years before he can draw a pension.

    Sessions said late Friday in a statement:

    “After an extensive and fair investigation and according to Department of Justice procedure, the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided its report on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

    “The FBI’s OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor ― including under oath ― on multiple occasions.

    The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, “all FBI employees know that lacking candor under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand.”

    Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the Department’s senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.

    McCabe responded to the firing in a lengthy statement.

    "The investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility," McCabe wrote.

    He continued:


    The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI’s involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.

    McCabe had been with the bureau since 1996 and served a short stint as the acting FBI director after President Donald Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey last May. After the U.S. Senate confirmed Christopher Wray as the bureau chief, McCabe returned to his original role as deputy director.

    McCabe abruptly announced he was leaving the bureau at the end of January while tangled in an internal investigation of his handling of the FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton. The Justice Department’s inspector general has been investigating how officials handled the Clinton investigation since just before Trump took office.

    While Trump has accused McCabe of having a political bias in favor of Clinton, the Justice Department’s forthcoming internal review suggests he may have actually authorized the disclosure of information that was damaging to the Clinton campaign.

    The report evidently says that McCabe authorized a discussion involving one of his top aides, the FBI’s chief spokesman and a Wall Street Journal reporter for a story, published Oct. 30, 2016, that included details of McCabe pushing back on Obama appointees in the Justice Department to continue an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

    FBI officials are barred from disclosing information about ongoing criminal investigations. The Justice Department’s inspector general recommended that Sessions fire McCabe as a result of the internal review, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

    McCabe has been at odds with Trump in recent months, with the president apparently trying to undermine McCabe and the FBI’s credibility.

    In December, Trump publicly complained about McCabe’s wife’s political affiliations (Jill McCabe unsuccessfully ran as a Democrat for a Virginia state Senate seat in 2015), criticized his oversight of the FBI investigations into Clinton and even mocked his retirement plans.

    In one of his tweets, Trump claimed that McCabe received a campaign donation of $700,000 from “Clinton Puppets,” apparently referencing a donation to Jill McCabe’s campaign totaling up to $675,000 from former Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s political action committee.

    The donation was made before Andrew McCabe was promoted to deputy director and headed the FBI’s Clinton investigation. McAuliffe is an ally to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    Trump also reportedly called McCabe into his office for a meeting, then asked him which candidate he voted for in the 2016 presidential election, The Washington Post reported in January.

    David Bowdich, the FBI’s associate deputy director, is expected to replace McCabe as deputy director, according to The Washington Post. Bowdich has been with the FBI since 1995.

    This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

    I am The Librarian

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts