Prosecutor to Investigate Origins of FBI Trump-Russia Probe

[Anonymous]

Ok so yesterday, the courts unsealed elements of the Flynn proceeding. In it, it confirmed overt obstruction of justice by Trump's former attorney, John Dowd.

It also confirmed ongoing internal Trump Campaign conversations regarding Wikileaks, illustrating "collusion" (not a legal term, but I put it in quotes to note that as a blanket term for a variety of crimes against the voters of the United States of America.

Is the PP who is looking forward to the results of Barr's witch hunt not at all concerned about the actual crimes conveyed in these releases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

Here is my issue with what you say: unlike others, I take the Mueller report at face value. Mueller said that he found no evidence of collusion. If Trump and his minions were involved in other criminal actions, they should pay the price.

But none of the above distracts from needing to know whether there was anything questionable done by the likes of Comey/Clapper and Brennan.

I am not a partisan; I was bothered by allegations of possible collusion with Russia. I am also concerned whether there were those who tried to influence the election against Trump. FWIW, I did not vote for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

Here is my issue with what you say: unlike others, I take the Mueller report at face value. Mueller said that he found no evidence of collusion. If Trump and his minions were involved in other criminal actions, they should pay the price.

But none of the above distracts from needing to know whether there was anything questionable done by the likes of Comey/Clapper and Brennan.

I am not a partisan; I was bothered by allegations of possible collusion with Russia. I am also concerned whether there were those who tried to influence the election against Trump. FWIW, I did not vote for Trump.

Mueller said nothing of the sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

Here is my issue with what you say: unlike others, I take the Mueller report at face value. Mueller said that he found no evidence of collusion. If Trump and his minions were involved in other criminal actions, they should pay the price.

But none of the above distracts from needing to know whether there was anything questionable done by the likes of Comey/Clapper and Brennan.

I am not a partisan; I was bothered by allegations of possible collusion with Russia. I am also concerned whether there were those who tried to influence the election against Trump. FWIW, I did not vote for Trump.

Mueller wasn't charged with finding collusion (which isn't a statutory crime) - I don't know why you don't get that. Read this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/17/why-flynn-revelations-are-so-important/ by (former) Republican Jennifer Rubin. The discussion around Wikileaks IS COLLUSION. He left it to the counterintelligence operation that is ongoing and to the Congress.

"influence the election against Trump" ????? What? If anyone influenced the election, it was 1) Comey and 2) Wikileaks/GRU/Russia. None of this Trump-Russia stuff came out until AFTER the election.

You probably voted for Jill Stein, who was also on Putin's payroll.

[Anonymous]

I think now is a good time to remind everyone of something that happened prior to the warrant on Carter Page was issued.
This was disclosed:

On March 9, 2016, Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight personnel learned that the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed.

This information was disclosed in a 99-page FISA court ruling on April 26, 2017, that was declassified by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

That wasn’t an isolated incident and the improper access granted to outside contractors “seems to have been the result of deliberate decisionmaking” (footnote – page 87).

And then.....

Following the discovery that outside contractors for the FBI were accessing raw FISA data, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA’s Office of Compliance to conduct a “fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702” at some point in early April 2016 (Senate testimony & page 83-84 of court ruling).

Rogers served concurrently as director of the NSA, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, and Central Security Service chief from April 2014 to May 2018. Rogers previously was the director for intelligence for both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Pacific Command, and as commander of the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and the U.S. 10th Fleet.

Rogers played a major role in uncovering ongoing FISA abuses, and his efforts are revealed in the April 26, 2017, FISA court ruling. Significant changes to the handling of raw Section 702 FISA data resulted from the FISA court’s findings.

On April 18, 2016, Rogers moved aggressively in response to the disclosures. He abruptly shut down all FBI outside-contractor access. At this point, both the FBI and the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) became aware of Rogers’s compliance review. They may have known earlier, but they were certainly aware after outside-contractor access was halted.

And then....

On Oct. 20, 2016, Rogers was briefed by the NSA compliance officer on findings from the 702 NSA compliance audit. The audit had uncovered a large number of issues, including numerous “about query” violations (Senate testimony).

Rogers shut down all “about query” activity on Oct. 21, 2016. “About queries” are particularly worrisome, since they occur when the target is neither the sender nor the recipient of the collected communication—but the target’s “query,” such as an email address, is being passed between two other communicants.

On the same day, the DOJ and FBI sought and received a Title I FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. At this point, the FISA court still was unaware of the Section 702 violations.

Sometime between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers reported his findings to the DOJ. From there, he presented his findings to the FISA court (Senate testimony & inferences from court ruling):

And then.......

As all of this was transpiring, then-DNI James Clapper and then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a recommendation that Rogers be removed from his position as NSA chief. The move to fire Rogers, which failed, originated sometime in mid-to-late October 2016—exactly when Rogers was preparing to present his findings to the FISA court.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nsa-director-rogers-disclosed-fisa-abuse-days-after-carter-page-fisa-was-issued_2692033.html

Hopefully, these "coincidences" will be included in Horowitz's investigation of FISA abuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think now is a good time to remind everyone of something that happened prior to the warrant on Carter Page was issued.
This was disclosed:

On March 9, 2016, Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight personnel learned that the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed.

This information was disclosed in a 99-page FISA court ruling on April 26, 2017, that was declassified by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

That wasn’t an isolated incident and the improper access granted to outside contractors “seems to have been the result of deliberate decisionmaking” (footnote – page 87).

And then.....

Following the discovery that outside contractors for the FBI were accessing raw FISA data, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA’s Office of Compliance to conduct a “fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702” at some point in early April 2016 (Senate testimony & page 83-84 of court ruling).

Rogers served concurrently as director of the NSA, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, and Central Security Service chief from April 2014 to May 2018. Rogers previously was the director for intelligence for both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Pacific Command, and as commander of the U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and the U.S. 10th Fleet.

Rogers played a major role in uncovering ongoing FISA abuses, and his efforts are revealed in the April 26, 2017, FISA court ruling. Significant changes to the handling of raw Section 702 FISA data resulted from the FISA court’s findings.

On April 18, 2016, Rogers moved aggressively in response to the disclosures. He abruptly shut down all FBI outside-contractor access. At this point, both the FBI and the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) became aware of Rogers’s compliance review. They may have known earlier, but they were certainly aware after outside-contractor access was halted.

And then....

On Oct. 20, 2016, Rogers was briefed by the NSA compliance officer on findings from the 702 NSA compliance audit. The audit had uncovered a large number of issues, including numerous “about query” violations (Senate testimony).

Rogers shut down all “about query” activity on Oct. 21, 2016. “About queries” are particularly worrisome, since they occur when the target is neither the sender nor the recipient of the collected communication—but the target’s “query,” such as an email address, is being passed between two other communicants.

On the same day, the DOJ and FBI sought and received a Title I FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. At this point, the FISA court still was unaware of the Section 702 violations.

Sometime between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers reported his findings to the DOJ. From there, he presented his findings to the FISA court (Senate testimony & inferences from court ruling):

And then.......

As all of this was transpiring, then-DNI James Clapper and then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a recommendation that Rogers be removed from his position as NSA chief. The move to fire Rogers, which failed, originated sometime in mid-to-late October 2016—exactly when Rogers was preparing to present his findings to the FISA court.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/nsa-director-rogers-disclosed-fisa-abuse-days-after-carter-page-fisa-was-issued_2692033.html

Hopefully, these "coincidences" will be included in Horowitz's investigation of FISA abuses.

The whole system has been modified over time. That doesn't mean abuse - as in, someone doing something corrupt. It means that it's a new system that is being refined. That's how the law works, that's how law enforcement works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

Democrats are not defensive about it, we just understand that this is totally manufactured and Trump, Barr and others are pushing an agenda that undermines our institutions and norms. This is an actual witch hunt because, at least I personally, have no faith that Barr is acting in good faith on this given his past comments and comments from this morning. It is literally investigating the investigators, including those who had been responsible for charges against Russian mafia assets a decade ago who were forced out by Trump. He is literally cleaning house of those who were on the front lines of our country's safety.

So, you have no faith in Horowitz, Huber, or Durham?
You realize that Barr is not conducting this investigation, right?
And, you don't see any red flags with all the crap that has come out? Really?

Barr redacted the Flynn stuff, not for Grand Jury or Harm to onging matter, but for personal privacy - reason 4. He redacted to protect John Dowd. Is that a sound justification? Something trustworthy?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/17/why-flynn-revelations-are-so-important/

[Anonymous]

Epochtimes

A publication associated with the European far-right and promoter of such Russian propaganda as the anti-vaccination campaigns and climate change denial.

Please do yourself a favor and get some vetted news sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

Here is my issue with what you say: unlike others, I take the Mueller report at face value. Mueller said that he found no evidence of collusion. If Trump and his minions were involved in other criminal actions, they should pay the price.

But none of the above distracts from needing to know whether there was anything questionable done by the likes of Comey/Clapper and Brennan.

I am not a partisan; I was bothered by allegations of possible collusion with Russia. I am also concerned whether there were those who tried to influence the election against Trump. FWIW, I did not vote for Trump.

Mueller said nothing of the sort.

Yes he did.
Impeach or stfu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

Here is my issue with what you say: unlike others, I take the Mueller report at face value. Mueller said that he found no evidence of collusion. If Trump and his minions were involved in other criminal actions, they should pay the price.

But none of the above distracts from needing to know whether there was anything questionable done by the likes of Comey/Clapper and Brennan.

I am not a partisan; I was bothered by allegations of possible collusion with Russia. I am also concerned whether there were those who tried to influence the election against Trump. FWIW, I did not vote for Trump.

Mueller said nothing of the sort.

Yes he did.
Impeach or stfu

It's coming.

Civility please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Democrats so defensive about this?

If there is nothing after the investigation, then it becomes a non-issue. If, OTOH, there are issues surely no one would argue that it should be pursued. The only thing that makes me think that there may be more to this whole story than I originally thought is that Comey/Clapper/Brennan are already trying to shift the blame to each other for why the dossier was given credence.

It is losing the forest for the trees and a shiny object to distract from the actual crimes committed by Trumpworld. And for some reason, smart people like you continue to fall for it time, after time.

Here is my issue with what you say: unlike others, I take the Mueller report at face value. Mueller said that he found no evidence of collusion. If Trump and his minions were involved in other criminal actions, they should pay the price.

But none of the above distracts from needing to know whether there was anything questionable done by the likes of Comey/Clapper and Brennan.

I am not a partisan; I was bothered by allegations of possible collusion with Russia. I am also concerned whether there were those who tried to influence the election against Trump. FWIW, I did not vote for Trump.

Mueller said nothing of the sort.

Yes he did.
Impeach or stfu

DP, but no he didn't. This was part of the Barr spin from the outset. Try reading it yourself, without a filter, if you really want to know and understand what Mueller said.

[Anonymous]

The whole system has been modified over time. That doesn't mean abuse - as in, someone doing something corrupt. It means that it's a new system that is being refined. That's how the law works, that's how law enforcement works.

Uh, no. This was a pretty serious compliance issue. It wasn't about modifications. It was about unlawful conduct.

Sometime between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers reported his findings to the DOJ. From there, he presented his findings to the FISA court (Senate testimony & inferences from court ruling):

Adm. Mike Rogers: I was briefed on something like October the 20th … I then, from memory, went to the Department of Justice and then on to the FISA court at the end of October—I think it was something like the 26th of October—and we informed the court: We have a compliance issue here and we’re concerned that there’s an underlying issue with the technical solution we put in place.

Sen. James Lankford: So you reported initially to the court, this is an issue, or the court initially came to you and said, we have an issue?

Rogers: I went to the court and said, we have an issue.

Rogers’s recollection was correct. On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA court of his findings (Page 4 of court ruling):


“On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.”

Rogers appeared formally before the FISA court on Oct. 26, 2016, and presented the written findings of his audit (Page 4, 14 & 19 of Court Ruling & Senate testimony).

“Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government made a written submission regarding those compliance problems … and the Court held a hearing to address them.”

“The government reported that the NSA IG and OCO were conducting other reviews covering different time periods, with preliminary results suggesting that the problem was widespread during all periods under review.”

The FISA court was unaware of the FISA “query” violations until they were presented to the court by then-NSA Director Rogers.

The NSD and FBI knew Rogers was conducting his own compliance review. Rogers knew the NSD was finalizing its 2016 certification. The NSD was aware that its 2016 certification lacked material and legally required disclosure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The whole system has been modified over time. That doesn't mean abuse - as in, someone doing something corrupt. It means that it's a new system that is being refined. That's how the law works, that's how law enforcement works.

Uh, no. This was a pretty serious compliance issue. It wasn't about modifications. It was about unlawful conduct.

Sometime between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers reported his findings to the DOJ. From there, he presented his findings to the FISA court (Senate testimony & inferences from court ruling):

Adm. Mike Rogers: I was briefed on something like October the 20th … I then, from memory, went to the Department of Justice and then on to the FISA court at the end of October—I think it was something like the 26th of October—and we informed the court: We have a compliance issue here and we’re concerned that there’s an underlying issue with the technical solution we put in place.

Sen. James Lankford: So you reported initially to the court, this is an issue, or the court initially came to you and said, we have an issue?

Rogers: I went to the court and said, we have an issue.

Rogers’s recollection was correct. On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA court of his findings (Page 4 of court ruling):


“On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.”

Rogers appeared formally before the FISA court on Oct. 26, 2016, and presented the written findings of his audit (Page 4, 14 & 19 of Court Ruling & Senate testimony).

“Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government made a written submission regarding those compliance problems … and the Court held a hearing to address them.”

“The government reported that the NSA IG and OCO were conducting other reviews covering different time periods, with preliminary results suggesting that the problem was widespread during all periods under review.”

The FISA court was unaware of the FISA “query” violations until they were presented to the court by then-NSA Director Rogers.

The NSD and FBI knew Rogers was conducting his own compliance review. Rogers knew the NSD was finalizing its 2016 certification. The NSD was aware that its 2016 certification lacked material and legally required disclosure.

I guess you missed all this stuff when it happened. Yes, a compliance issue. It was a big deal, then. As the standards are evolving, things change.

Nothing to do with Trump or Mueller specifically, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The whole system has been modified over time. That doesn't mean abuse - as in, someone doing something corrupt. It means that it's a new system that is being refined. That's how the law works, that's how law enforcement works.

Uh, no. This was a pretty serious compliance issue. It wasn't about modifications. It was about unlawful conduct.

Sometime between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers reported his findings to the DOJ. From there, he presented his findings to the FISA court (Senate testimony & inferences from court ruling):

Adm. Mike Rogers: I was briefed on something like October the 20th … I then, from memory, went to the Department of Justice and then on to the FISA court at the end of October—I think it was something like the 26th of October—and we informed the court: We have a compliance issue here and we’re concerned that there’s an underlying issue with the technical solution we put in place.

Sen. James Lankford: So you reported initially to the court, this is an issue, or the court initially came to you and said, we have an issue?

Rogers: I went to the court and said, we have an issue.

Rogers’s recollection was correct. On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA court of his findings (Page 4 of court ruling):


“On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.”

Rogers appeared formally before the FISA court on Oct. 26, 2016, and presented the written findings of his audit (Page 4, 14 & 19 of Court Ruling & Senate testimony).

“Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government made a written submission regarding those compliance problems … and the Court held a hearing to address them.”

“The government reported that the NSA IG and OCO were conducting other reviews covering different time periods, with preliminary results suggesting that the problem was widespread during all periods under review.”

The FISA court was unaware of the FISA “query” violations until they were presented to the court by then-NSA Director Rogers.

The NSD and FBI knew Rogers was conducting his own compliance review. Rogers knew the NSD was finalizing its 2016 certification. The NSD was aware that its 2016 certification lacked material and legally required disclosure.

I guess you missed all this stuff when it happened. Yes, a compliance issue. It was a big deal, then. As the standards are evolving, things change.

Nothing to do with Trump or Mueller specifically, though.

No. I remember it quite well. Whether it had anything to do with the Russia investigation will be determined. The timing is quite curious.