Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post your thoughts here if you are not sure where to post it!
User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 14, 2019, 5:40 am

20190411-111430.jpg

Greg Craig was targeted after he lied on or about Oct 2017. The Grand Jury was placed in May 2018. But his indictment was not filed until Apr 2019. It will be interesting to hear why it took over 2 years for this to happen to a Democrat in the Obama Administration. And it all happened at the same time others were indicted. Interesting.

Source: WSJ and NY Times
Former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig expects to be indicted in the coming days on charges stemming from work he performed for Ukraine in 2012, Mr. Craig’s legal team said. Mr. Craig has refused to accept a plea deal, and the matter could be presented to a grand jury for indictment as soon as Thursday, people familiar with the matter say. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.
The NY Times is reporting that this came out of the Mueller Special Counsel investigation. This guy is connected to Clinton, Podesta and others.

The Ukraine government is turning over evidence to the DOJ that implicates the Clinton Campaign in the 2016 election. VP Joe Biden also has an issue in Ukraine.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 14, 2019, 5:44 am



Never Forget What Clapper Admitted Regarding Spying on Trump

Now Clapper is changing his story since AG Barr is investigating.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 14, 2019, 5:53 am



Intel Officer and Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer introduces the 'necessary waiver' into the mix

If that waiver was issued to keep Trump in the dark, Clapper was involved because it's an NSC function. Clapper and Brennan up to their eyeballs in this.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 15, 2019, 8:24 am

Wiretap.jpg



Spying on Trump was run out of the White House

The worm has turned.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 16, 2019, 5:42 am

.

More nuggets gleaned from congressional testimony ...

Lisa Page, former FBI Attorney:
Her congressional testimony revealed that there was not enough evidence on Trump-Russia collusion for there to be a 'defensive briefing' to the CIA and NSA.

YET, they brought this 'not enough evidence' to the FISA Court -- four times -- to be able to spy on the Trump Campaign.

Had Hillary won, which they all assumed would happen, this would have all been buried and covered up with help from the eneMedia -- if necessary. All of the current suspects would have been promoted to higher positions of power.

But Trump won, and AG Barr is on the case.

More shoes to drop.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 16, 2019, 5:51 am

.

Congressional Testimony Reveals that Brit Intelligence Was Involved in GET TRUMP

There's some Australian involvement, too.

Source: Bill Priestap (Assistant Director, FBI Counterintelligence) Congressional Testimony

Eric Felten outlines Priestap's testimony, which adds some new shoes that could be dropping in the spying that occurred on the Trump Campaign.

Priestap made very few trips out of the US in his role with the FBI, but he made some trips to London. It is apparent from the questions and answers that the Obama administration was willing to enlist the spying help of foreign allies to do the dirty deeds that were unlawful in the US.

When Trump announced that he was going to expose the phony evidence and events that led up to the investigation against him -- getting the FISA warrants on Carter Page -- Trump halted in that release. Rumors are that MI6 and Australian Intelligence begged Trump not do so because of the damage it would do to the credibility of their agencies. Plus, it would have exposed sources and methods.

Reports suggested that the UK was desperate for the the information to remain sealed. Why? There is evidence that British intelligence agents were involved in helping to try to destroy Trump's presidency.

May 2016 is when Priestap is alleged to have been in London. This was at the beginning of the counterintelligence investigation to GET TRUMP.

During Pristap's testimony, he was asked repeatedly where and when he took his trips, and the DOJ/FBI continued to redact the location and time. How is that a matter of national security? It's not. They're hiding it.

The text messages between Strzok and Page revealed where Priestap went -- and when:
“I don’t know that Bill will read it before he gets back from London next week.”

Bill Priestap was in London May 9.

Priestap: So, I went to meet with a foreign partner, foreign government partner.

In April 2016, US intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud fed the first phony information to George Papadopoulos. This started the circular evidence chain of dialogue. Just five days after Mifsud fed him the phony info, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer prods Papadopoulos for the dirt that Misfud fed to him. And don't forget: London is home to Christopher Steele.

Priestap keeps going to London the whole time this is going on. Remember. They are the only foreign trips that Priestap ever took that was related to his job.

Officially, the FBI began their "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation to GET TRUMP on July 31, 2016, but we now know that they were spying long before that.

After the investigation began in July, Strzok then goes to London.

London. London. London.


Papadopoulos was convinced to come to London to meet with US intelligence asset Stefan Halper under the pretense of writing a paper for $3,000. Papadopoulos was also contacted by Mifsud in London right after he met with Halper. Australia's Downer met with Papadopoulos in London right after meeting with Mifsud. SETUP.

The only thing we DON'T know is how deeply British intelligence was involved, but they had to be involved with any foreign operation on their soil.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 16, 2019, 6:31 am

.

James 'Cardinal' Comey — the man who destroyed the FBI

Source: Joseph diGenova
Wyatt Earp. Elliot Ness. J. Edgar Hoover. Inspector Clouseau. James Comey. The names reflect a continuum, from greatness to farce and mediocrity.

In the annals of U.S. law enforcement, no individual has reached such depths of disgrace as James “Cardinal” Comey. The “Cardinal” was a sobriquet that FBI agents used to denigrate their leader. As Deputy Attorney General, he was called “drama queen.” Known for his pomposity and self-regard, Comey cut a swath of arrogance unmatched in the histories of either of those illustrious organizations. He was the cult of personality. He surrounded himself with sycophants, people dedicated to his promotion and their advancement. The Bureau and the public became the losers.

The Comey Memos, a 15-page suicide note, reveal a deeply tortured and troubled man. They have a hausfrau sentimentality. But they are telling nonetheless.

As we watch in amazement the mendacious and fiction-laced Comey book tour (truly a tour de farce), one is struck by the utter phantasm he has created around and about him. With each successive lie, he sinks to a new low. Ask yourself this question: Can you imagine William Webster or Louie Freeh mounting this psychodrama defense of their tenures as FBI director? To ask the question is to answer it.

The American people are being treated to a dose of reality about Washington, D.C. Comey is a symptom. The disease is a voracious, rapacious government filled at high levels by people of immense ego and viciousness. Whether it is the IRS’s Lois Lerner, Comey, or the political thugs Obama installed at the highest echelons of the U.S. Department of Justice, the CIA, the DNI, and the NSC, they all share a common bond: allegiance to a cause unrelated to the Constitution, a cause borne of disdain for the average American and dedicated to power and its use and abuse against political “enemies.”

There now can be no doubt that there was a brazen plot by senior officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, NSC, and DNI to carry out two objectives: to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton in the email server investigation; and if she lost the election, to frame Trump and his team for crimes they did not commit.

As a former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel, Special Counsel to the House of Representatives, and investigator for more than 40 years, I can say all the known facts of record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom point to just that.

These individuals concluded, with Comey in the lead, that Donald Trump was not fit to be president. They loathed him and everything he stood for. They loved Hillary and everything she stood for. He had to be stopped. She had to be elected. And if she couldn’t be elected, he had to be immobilized, degraded, and run out of office. That meant that the rules of the constitutional game no longer applied because the end result – removing Trump – had a higher moral value. Indeed, it was a moral necessity. The Comey book tour underscores that maniacal belief.

They concocted a scheme to use foreign intelligence lackies to serve their interests. And in the course of that endeavor, they enlisted the likes of Christopher Steele, whose deposition in a London court as a defendant in a libel case is worth reading. He saw nothing. He knows nothing. What is all this about collusion, he testifies. What dossier? What facts? None of the dossier “facts” is verified, he says.

In this endeavor, Steele was sponsored by “opposition research” firm, Fusion GPS, the Clinton Campaign, and the law firm Perkins-Coie. Comey, to his eternal discredit, briefed the president about the dossier at Trump Tower shortly after the election but says he didn’t tell the president it was funded by Hillary’s campaign; yet to Bret Baier he laments that to this day he doesn’t know who paid for the dossier. When you join the Resistance, this is what you sound like.

The Obama FBI and DOJ apparatchiks used the Steele Dossier to corrupt the FISA warrant process to obtain warrants to spy on the campaign of the opposition party’s nominee. It is the greatest political scandal in American history, yet the press is disinterested. They whine about the threat that this president allegedly poses to the First Amendment. Yet he has not — and his Department of Justice has not — issued a single subpoena to a newspaper or news organization, as Eric Holder did under Barack Obama. Apparently, that was fine, since it was a Democrat doing the dirty work. “And when they came for me…”
The press is disinterested because they were complicit in this fraud. They colluded with the DOJ/FBI cabal leadership because the media had the same goal. The media is still emotionally invested in GET TRUMP -- trying to regain all the credibility they lost for investing so much and LOSING. THIS IS WHY YOU WILL SEE LITTLE OR NO REPORTING on the new investigation as to how the fraud investigation started. You won't see ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC reporting on it.
James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, testified so incompletely and so falsely on so many occasions that it is impossible to list them all here. Suffice it say that he has no credibility left. So, naturally, he is a consultant to CNN. There’s the rub. He conspired with James Comey, our hero, to leak to his new employer, CNN, the news that Comey had briefed the president-elect on the salacious content of the unverified material in the Steele Dossier. This was the “hook” that CNN was looking for to justify publishing the fictional trash in the dossier. Clapper and Comey complied. Comey gave a Hooverian blackmail briefing to the unsuspecting Trump. Then he told Clapper the deed was done. Clapper promptly leaked that fact to CNN, his soon-to-be employer.

Comey and Clapper were aided and abetted during the campaign, the transition, and the post-Inauguration by John Brennan, CIA head. Brennan, who voted for Communist Party USA candidate for President Gus Hall, has displayed an animus, vitriol, and vituperation so vicious that it has shocked former and current members of the intelligence community. Indeed, his Twitter rants have demeaned both him and the agency he once headed.

But Brennan’s bursts of anger have unwittingly revealed an important fact: he had a motive and desire to collude with others in the Obama administration to take down the opposition party’s candidate for president by any means necessary. So fierce was his opposition to Trump that he believed the power of the intelligence community had to be unleashed illegally to stop Trump. Thus was born the FISA corruption and the unmasking and illegal leaking of that intelligence product. Brennan has unmasked himself by so doing.

Comey politicized the FBI, America’s premier law enforcement agency. It started on July 6, 2016, when he usurped the authority of Attorney General Loretta Lynch in violation of the Constitution, the law, and DOJ regulations. He destroyed Hillary’s campaign when he unethically and unprofessionally described her conduct with pejorative words as criminal and then illegally exonerated her of the crimes. President Obama should have fired him that day. But he did not. Why? Perhaps because he had knowledge of Hillary’s avoidance of any protected email channels – after all, he communicated with her on her private server using a pseudonym.
Yeah, Obama knew about Hillary's illegal server because he emailed her on it.
Comey is a poseur. He pretends to be Thomas Beckett but he is, in fact, the assassin, Henry II. He claims in his memos that he doesn’t do sneaky things, leak, or do other weaselly things. Yet in his Bret Baier interview, he pretended not to know what a leak is. The president performed a public service by firing him. He should have done it the day after the Inauguration.

The treachery revealed by Comey, Clapper, and Brennan requires accountability. That can only happen through a federal grand jury investigation headed by John W. Huber, the U.S. Attorney in Utah who has been appointed to investigate the FISA criminality by the Obama FBI and DOJ.

The evidence of illegal and unconstitutional abuse of law enforcement and intelligence community power and authority is clear. Grand jury subpoenas need to issue. These individuals have stolen 15 months of a new president’s tenure. They have needlessly thrown the country into spasms of doubt about the bona fides of an election. Cardinal Comey should get the first grand jury subpoena.
Joseph diGenova is a former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel, Special Counsel to the House of Representatives, and investigator for more than 40 years. Very credible. He knows the ropes and the suspects.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

User avatar
Lone Star
udonmap.com
Posts: 3840
Joined: June 26, 2014, 11:52 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Lone Star » April 17, 2019, 8:00 am

.

Behind the Obama administration’s shady plan to spy on the Trump campaign

Source: Andrew McCarthy, former US federal prosecutor
In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign. Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.

(Needless to say, the former director neglected to mention that the court was not informed that the bureau’s “evidence” for the warrants was unverified hearsay paid for by the Clinton campaign.)
Surveillance authorized by a court is dependent upon investigators swearing by affidavit that the evidence, information, informant's word is legit. The court doesn't issue these on their own.
The pearl-clutching was predictable. Less than a year ago, we learned the Obama administration had used a confidential informant — a spy — to approach at least three Trump campaign officials in the months leading up to the 2016 election, straining to find proof that the campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking of Democratic emails.
Facts matter. We know this happened.
As night follows day, we were treated to the same Beltway hysteria we got this week: Silly semantic carping over the word “spying” — which, regardless of whether a judge authorizes it, is merely the covert gathering of intelligence about a suspected wrongdoer, organization or foreign power.

There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. As Barr made clear, the real question is: What predicated the spying? Was there a valid reason for it, strong enough to overcome our norm against political spying? Or was it done rashly? Was a politically motivated decision made to use highly intrusive investigative tactics when a more measured response would have sufficed, such as a “defensive briefing” that would have warned the Trump campaign of possible Russian infiltration?
After all, when the Feds learned that Democrat Senator Feinstein had a Chinese operative working for her for 20 years, they told her about it, and she fired him. Why not provide a similar heads up to Trump? BECAUSE TRUMP.
Last year, when the “spy” games got underway, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, conceded that, yes, the FBI did run an informant — “spy” is such an icky word — at Trump campaign officials; but, we were told, this was merely to investigate Russia. Cross Clapper’s heart, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. No, no, no. Indeed, the Obama administration only used an informant because — bet you didn’t know this — doing so is the most benign, least intrusive mode of conducting an investigation.

Me? I’m thinking the tens of thousands of convicts serving lengthy sentences due to the penetration of their schemes by informants would beg to differ. (Gee, Mr. Gambino, I assure you, this was just for you own good . . .) And imagine the Democrats’ response if, say, the Bush administration had run a covert intelligence operative against Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign’s co-chairman. Surely David Axelrod, Chuck Schumer, The New York Times and Rachel Maddow would chirp that “all is forgiven” once they heard Republicans punctiliously parse the nuances between “spying” and “surveillance”; between “spies” and “informants”; and between investigating campaign officials versus investigating the campaign proper — and the candidate.
Yes, Democrats are hypocrites. We know this. You can't be a Democrat without being a hypocrite.
The “spying” question arose last spring, when we learned that Stefan Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, had been tasked during the FBI’s Russia investigation to chat up three Trump campaign advisers: Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis. This was in addition to earlier revelations that the Obama Justice Department and FBI had obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Page’s communications, beginning about three weeks before the 2016 election.

The fact that spying had occurred was too clear for credible denial. The retort, then, was misdirection: There had been no spying on Donald Trump or his campaign; just on a few potential bad actors in the campaign’s orbit.

It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.

The pols making these claims about what the FBI was doing might have been well served by listening to what the FBI said it was doing.

There was, for example, then-Director Comey’s breathtaking public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017. Comey did not just confirm the existence of a counterintelligence probe of Russian espionage to influence the 2016 election — notwithstanding that the government customarily refuses to confirm the existence of any investigation, let alone a classified counterintelligence investigation. The director further identified the Trump campaign as a subject of the probe, even though, to avoid smearing people, the Justice Department never identifies uncharged persons or organizations that are under investigation. As Comey put it:

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts . . .”

The FBI was spying, and it was doing so in an investigation of the Trump campaign. That is why, for over two years, Washington has been entranced by the specter of “Trump collusion with Russia” — not Page or Papadopoulos collusion with Russia. Comey went to extraordinary lengths to tell the world that the FBI was not merely zeroing in on individuals of varying ranks in the campaign; the main question was whether the Trump campaign itself — the entity — had “coordinated” in Russia’s espionage operation.

In the months prior to the election, as its Trump-Russia investigation ensued, some of the overtly political, rabidly anti-Trump FBI agents running the probe discussed among themselves the prospect of stopping Trump, or of using the investigation as an “insurance policy” in the highly unlikely event that Trump won the election. After Trump’s stunning victory, the Obama administration had a dilemma: How could the investigation be maintained if Trump were told about it? After all, as president, he would have the power to shut it down.

On Jan. 6, 2017, Comey, Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and National Security Agency chief Michael Rogers visited President-elect Trump in New York to brief him on the Russia investigation.

Just one day earlier, at the White House, Comey and then–Acting Attorney General Sally Yates had met with the political leadership of the Obama administration — President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and national security adviser Susan Rice — to discuss withholding information about the Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration.

Rice put this sleight-of-hand a bit more delicately in the memo about the Oval Office meeting (written two weeks after the fact, as Rice was leaving her office minutes after Trump’s inauguration):

“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”


It is easy to understand why Obama officials needed to discuss withholding information from Trump. They knew that the Trump campaign — not just some individuals tangentially connected to the campaign — was the subject of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe. An informant had been run at campaign officials. The FISA surveillance of Page was underway — in fact, right before Trump’s inauguration, the Obama administration obtained a new court warrant for 90 more days of spying.

In each Page surveillance warrant application, after describing Russia’s espionage operations, the Justice Department told the court, “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Candidate #1’s campaign[.]” Candidate #1 was Donald Trump — now, the president-elect.

The fact that the Trump campaign was under investigation for collaborating with Russia was not just withheld from the incoming president; it had been withheld from the congressional “Gang of Eight.”
The "Gang of Eight" was supposed to be notified. It is required.
In his March 2017 House testimony, answering questions by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), then-director Comey acknowledged that congressional leadership was not told about the Trump-Russia probe during quarterly briefings from July 2016 through early March 2017, because “it was a matter of such sensitivity.” Let’s put aside that the need to alert Congress to sensitive matters is exactly why there is a Gang of Eight (comprised of bipartisan leaders of both chambers and their intelligence committees).

Manifestly, the matter was deemed too “sensitive” for disclosure because that would have involved telling Republican congressional leadership that the incumbent Democratic administration was using foreign counterintelligence powers to investigate the Republican presidential campaign, and the party’s nominee, as suspected clandestine agents of the Kremlin.

How to keep the investigation going when Trump took office? The plan called for Comey to put the new president at ease by telling him he was not a suspect. This would not have been a credible assurance if Comey had informed Trump that (a) his campaign had been under investigation for months, and (b) the FBI had told a federal court it suspected Trump campaign officials were complicit in Russia’s cyber-espionage operation.

So, consistent with President Obama’s instructions at the Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting, information about the investigation would be withheld from the president-elect. The next day, the intelligence chiefs would tell Trump only about Russia’s espionage, not about the Trump campaign’s suspected “coordination” with the Kremlin. Then, Comey would apprise Trump about only a sliver of the Steele dossier — just the lurid story about peeing prostitutes, not the dossier’s principal allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy.

This strategy did not sit well with everyone at the FBI. Shortly before meeting with Trump on Jan. 6, Comey consulted his top advisers about the plan to tell Trump he was not a suspect. In later Senate testimony, Comey admitted that there was an objection from one FBI official:

“One of the members of the leadership team had a view that, although it was technically true [that] we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then-President-elect Trump[,] . . . because we’re looking at the potential . . . coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was . . . President-elect Trump’s campaign, this person’s view was, inevitably, [Trump’s] behavior, [Trump’s] conduct will fall within the scope of that work.”

Note that Comey did not refer to “potential coordination” between, say, Carter Page or Paul Manafort and Russia. The director was unambiguous: The FBI was investigating “potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Carter Page was never charged with anything, but he was used to initiate the whole thing. What EVIDENCE did they have against Carter Page to get the first FISA warrant to spy on him? There has to be evidence of a crime to get the warrant. Mere suspicion does not justify spying on Americans by the federal government.
Perspicaciously, Comey’s unidentified adviser connected the dots: (a) because the FBI’s investigation focused on the campaign, and (b) since the campaign was Trump’s campaign, it was necessarily true that (c) Trump’s own conduct was under FBI scrutiny.

Then-director Comey’s reliance on the trivial administrative fact that the FBI had not written Trump’s name on the investigative file did not change the reality that Trump, manifestly, was the main subject of the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.

Remember last year’s hullabaloo over special counsel Robert Mueller’s demand to interview the president? What need would there have been to conduct such an interview if Trump were not a subject of the investigation? Why would Trump’s political opponents have spent the last two years demanding that Mueller be permitted to complete his probe of collusion and obstruction if it were not understood that the investigation — including the spying, or, if you prefer, the electronic surveillance, the informant sorties, and the information gathered by national-security letter demands — was centrally about Donald Trump?

That brings us to a final point. Congressional investigations have established that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain FISA court warrants against Page.

The dossier, a Clinton campaign opposition research project (again, a fact withheld from the FISA court), was essential to the required probable-cause showing; the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, testified that without the dossier there would have been no warrant.

So . . . what did the dossier say? The lion’s share of it alleged that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Kremlin to corrupt the election, including by hacking and publicizing Democratic Party e-mails. This allegation was based on unidentified Russian sources whom the FBI could not corroborate; then-director Comey told Senate leaders that the FBI used the information because the bureau judged former British spy Christopher Steele to be credible, even though (a) Steele did not make any of the observations the court was being asked to rely on, and (b) Steele had misled the FBI about his contacts with the media — with whom Steele and his Clinton campaign allies were sharing the same information he was giving the bureau.
Steele has already testified under oath in another court matter that even HE did not believe the report and that he didn't even write it. He only agreed to have his name put on it as the author to give it credibility.
It is a major investigative step to seek surveillance warrants from the FISA court. Unlike using an informant (a human spy), for which no court authorization is necessary, applications for FISA surveillance require approvals at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the FBI. After going through that elaborate process, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI presented to the court the dossier’s allegations that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to undermine the 2016 election.

To be sure, no sensible person argues that the government should refrain from investigating if, based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals — even campaign officials, even a party’s nominee — of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. The question is: What should trigger such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?

The Obama administration decided that this norm did not apply to the Trump campaign. If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

That only makes sense if the Obama administration’s premise was that Donald Trump himself was a Russian agent.
There aren't a lot of suspects involved in this. It was all carried out by players in the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI with Obama's knowledge.

As I've mentioned before, you won't see the eneMedia covering much of this -- if any. They were complicit. They were tied into all the leaking of the GET TRUMPaganda that the Feds peddled to them. There was collusion between the eneMedia and the cabal.
US private charity and the US government do more good for people everywhere in the world -- every year -- than any other country. God Bless America.

Wide Awake
udonmap.com
Posts: 33
Joined: January 9, 2019, 12:02 pm

Re: Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

Post by Wide Awake » April 18, 2019, 4:30 pm

I wonder if anyone realizes that Hilary and Trump are Cousins and FreeMasons....
You cannot trust any of them..their #1 weapon is Deception. Just look at the POPE..hes one of them, he's a FreeMason , deciever.
And the most important thing here, is the fact, they are all selling us out to Israel and Kabalists, Talmudists, ect.
The other day Trump signed the Education Bill into Law. Does anyone here have "any" idea what this Education Bill really is? The basis of this is to Educate the Gentile, Goyim, "sheep", that they are only here to serve the Jews. Don't believe this? Maybe you need to get off that CNN, NBC, FOX, CNBC, ect...all owned by the Jews. They own the FED, IRS, Education Systems of the world, can print money out of "nothing" and are not subject to any Laws, are not held to pay taxes on anything. They own Israel, (the Rothchilds bought Israel, in an effort to bring about the Prophecies in the Bible. Only thing, they are trying to "Play God" and they will ultimately be destroyed for this, by God) and the true Israelis in Israel are being held like prisoners, by these Kabalist, Talmudic Jews.
OK, learn about the Noahide Laws, in Trumps Education Bill. Actually, every puppet President , going "way back", has been "owned"by these Kabalist, Talmudic Jews, and have signed these Education Bills into Law.
Read, watch..don't be lazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lMlG3uB1Q This is 2 good Jews, who will tell you the Truth about the bad Jews.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests