Welcome to America

[Leader of the Banned]

Drifter done drifted away. Waiting on Donald's next twist of words for his talking points, I guess.

He likes to ramble and he's been rendered speechless. Sucks to be him.

 

[Leader of the Banned]

 

[Emerald Drifter]

I really never knew the people that ran the FBI and the justice system before "the trump era" ( I think I have a bit of vomit in my mouth) but after hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates, and the general dossier on Robert Mueller, not to mention the comments of Micheal Hayden, John Brannon, James Clapper, and the bulk of the intelligence community, I am filled with a lot of admiration for the intelligence and integrity of these people. All of them have had about 30 years of service, and they had to be pretty good at their jobs to rise to the positions they had circa 2016. Doesn't it seem just a little bit silly that all these people would be smeared and called liars, after 30 years of outstanding service, and drumpf being believed after a lifetime of lying and stealing?

Boy are you gullible. "filled with a lot of admiration"?

The foundation of the left side crazies' push to try and remove Trump from office are the "Russian meddling" narratives. By Strzok's own admission to Page, there is nothing to the Russian meddling. And now you all will have to pivot to something else to try and remove Trump from office. Good luck.

I present, gleefully, to you an piece from John Soloman @ The Hill. Will this change your mind. Likely, no.

Here's the link and I will copy the entire text to better ensure that you see it. Opinion: One FBI text message in Russia probe that should alarm every American



By John Solomon
Opinion Contributor

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trump from becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

Is that an FBI you can live with?

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.

 

[Emerald Drifter]

Drifter, when Republican Mueller was appointed everyone agreed he is fair and the perfect person to carry out the investigation. Explain why Republicans and Trump areT now trying so hard to derail an investigation run by career Republicans they claim will ultimately exonerate Trump and show no evidence of collusion, conspiracy, or wrong doing?

Poppa, I appreciate the dialogue with you. Respect.

As you know, the FBI is under the DOJ which is under the Executive Branch. The FBI is not "independent". The President can shut down the investigation before sundown and he doesn't even have to give a reason. He can fire AG Sessions as well. He did fire Comey and with ZERO blowback (to make the point). Obviously, the spineless Republican wimps (mainly in the Senate) would join in the with Chuckie et al. howling for Trump's impeachment. From what I have heard is that Trump has chosen to let the Mueller deal play out because he doesn't just want to say he did not rig the election, he wants Meuller to eventually have to admit that there is nothing there.

The big questions are where's Sessions? What's he doing? Is he just taking long lunches, going after people who smoke weed? Or is he putting together cases that would make Hillary's (alleged) famous quote, "if that bastard wins we all swing from nooses" come (figuratively) true? Time will tell.

 

[Emerald Drifter]

He likes to ramble and he's been rendered speechless. Sucks to be him.

What may be perceived as rambling is actually me trying to illustrate that both Repubs and Dems have their issues. I really thing this whole drama/soap opera going on is a huge distraction from what we should be concerned with.

 

[Lake View Too]

Poppa, I appreciate the dialogue with you. Respect.

As you know, the FBI is under the DOJ which is under the Executive Branch. The FBI is not "independent". The President can shut down the investigation before sundown and he doesn't even have to give a reason. He can fire AG Sessions as well. He did fire Comey and with ZERO blowback (to make the point). Obviously, the spineless Republican wimps (mainly in the Senate) would join in the with Chuckie et al. howling for Trump's impeachment. From what I have heard is that Trump has chosen to let the Mueller deal play out because he doesn't just want to say he did not rig the election, he wants Meuller to eventually have to admit that there is nothing there.

The big questions are where's Sessions? What's he doing? Is he just taking long lunches, going after people who smoke weed? Or is he putting together cases that would make Hillary's (alleged) famous quote, "if that bastard wins we all swing from nooses" come (figuratively) true? Time will tell.

If Trump shuts down the investigation, there is no question in anyone's mind that that is obstruction of justice, which is "a high crime or misdemeanor". Period.

 

[Lake View Too]

What may be perceived as rambling is actually me trying to illustrate that both Repubs and Dems have their issues. I really thing this whole drama/soap opera going on is a huge distraction from what we should be concerned with.

If this is a distraction to you, you are welcome to find other means of amusing yourself. Some people think the degradation of our government and our position as leader of the free world are worth fighting against. I'm still waiting for your assessment of drumpf's summit meeting and especially his press conference. Stop ducking the issues and don't bring up that "bothsides" bullsh*t. This problem is solely a Republican lack of moral fiber.

 

[Lake View Too]

Boy are you gullible. "filled with a lot of admiration"?

The foundation of the left side crazies' push to try and remove Trump from office are the "Russian meddling" narratives. By Strzok's own admission to Page, there is nothing to the Russian meddling. And now you all will have to pivot to something else to try and remove Trump from office. Good luck.

I present, gleefully, to you an piece from John Soloman @ The Hill. Will this change your mind. Likely, no.

Here's the link and I will copy the entire text to better ensure that you see it. Opinion: One FBI text message in Russia probe that should alarm every American



By John Solomon
Opinion Contributor

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trump from becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

Is that an FBI you can live with?

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.

Hardly an unbiased interpretation of the facts. And quite contradictory to the Inspector General's Report. If there is nothing there, then, when the investigation is concluded, it will exonerate Mister Drumpf. Why try to smear Mueller for the last year and a half? If a person acts guilty as sin (for well over a year and a half), guess what? he is guilty as sin.

 

[EZ4144]

Trump is president because of Putin and he owns him. The midterms will be attacked and chaos ensues. Subsequent cyber attacks on our infrastructure and banking create anarchy. America crumbles.

Keep squabbling dweebs.

 

[Lake View Too]