tomkaz

"Hurricane Crossfire", Meanings and Implications

Rate this topic

52 posts in this topic

Par for the course Tom. 

 

When these scum have been jailed, these same people will be talking about appeals.

There's no end to the excuses and/or the revisions to history. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For everyone except Mully, The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway lists 10 observations from the Times' story. Oo ling to cut and plop but I might excerpt a few. The full article is here:

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/17/10-key-takeaways-from-new-york-times-error-ridden-defense-of-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/

 

MULLY, that is The Federalist so don’t bother reading as you will dismiss it anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Terrified About Looming Inspector General Report

Likewise, the admissions in this New York Times story are coming out now, years after selective leaks to compliant reporters, just before an inspector general report detailing some of these actions is slated to be released this month. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that people mentioned in the report are beginning to get previews of what it alleges. It’s reasonable to assume that much of the new information in the New York Times report relates to information that will be coming out in the inspector general report.

By working with friendly reporters, these leaking FBI officials can ensure the first story about their unprecedented spying on political opponents will downplay that spying and even attempt to justify it. Of note is the story’s claim that very few people even knew about the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, which means the leakers for this story come from a relatively small pool of people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Still No Evidence of Collusion With Russia

In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.

No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10. Affirms Fears of Politicized Intelligence

This New York Times story may have been designed to inoculate the FBI against revelations coming out of the inspector general report, but the net result was to affirm the fears of many Americans who are worried that the U.S. government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies abused their powers to surveil and target Americans simply for their political views and affiliations. The gathered information has been leaked to media for years, leading to damaged reputations, and the launch of limitless probes, but not any reason to believe that Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sara Carter:

 

he Department of Justice Inspector General has sent what is described as an “extremely long and thorough draft” of the much anticipated report on the FBI and DOJ’s investigation and handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe, this reporter has learned. The detailed report on the FBI’s decision making process into the Clinton investigation could lead to possible criminal referrals for some of the officials involved in the case.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, which is expected to be released within the next three to four weeks to the public, has been turned over to current and former officials for review, as first reported in The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.

The draft, however, does not include any recommendations for criminal prosecution. If there was any evidence collected by the Inspector General’s office of criminality, Horowitz would then refer the matter to the Department of Justice and submit a criminal referral.

“It would be up to the Inspector General to make the recommendations but there is an expectation that there will be at least one referral for prosecution,” said a source familiar with the findings, who added that it is not conclusive as the Inspector General’s office never discusses ongoing investigations.

The report is expected to focus solely on the Clinton investigation and not on the 2016 Russia election meddling investigation, according to sources.

As for the criminal referrals, it would be similar to the outcome of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions after Horowitz’s explosive first report released in April found that he lied multiple times about authorizing a leak to The Wall Street Journal. In McCabe’s case, Horowitz referred his findings to Sessions, who fired him several days before he was set to retire. Horowitz also submitted a criminal referral on McCabe to the DOJ for possible criminal prosecution. It would be up to Washington prosecutors to determine whether or not to move forward with the referral and it elevated the possibility that McCabe would be charged with a crime. Horowitz’s report concluded that McCabe had lied to then-FBI Director James B. Comey, as well as his investigators and others regarding his authorization of the leak. McCabe lied on four occasions, three of those were under oath.

Intelligence Chiefs Testify At Senate Intelligence Hearing On World Wide Threats Intelligence Chiefs Testify At Senate Intelligence Hearing On World Wide Threats

The Clinton report is expected to be followed by a third report on the IG’s investigation into the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application on Carter Page, a former volunteer for the Trump campaign. The IG announced this investigation in March.

Earlier this year, the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report revealed that the unverified dossier on alleged collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 elections was used as the bulk of evidence to gain the FISA to spy on Page. The Intelligence Committee report also revealed that the FISA court was not told that the dossier, which was assembled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele through embattled opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

 

This story has been updated for clarity on the Inspector General’s process regarding criminal referrals. For more information on the guidelines of the DOJ IG Inspector General’s Office read here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew MCarthy, at National Review, make an observation the NYT would prefer be overlooked it seems:

 

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

 

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

 

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.

It’s a gas, gas, gas!

 

It’s also bunk. Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. It is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.