Tyb
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/12/2022 11:18:51
Gettr: p1u171sf70a
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/11/2022 12:47:09
Gettr: p1tx1b0443a
Durham's listed exhibits incl all 4 of FBI's FISA affidavits for spying on Trump adviser Page. They should be released IN FULL, sans redactions There's no nat'l security reason to cont. to black out whole sections of the docs. We now know that lurking beneath those redactions are the fabrications of Danchenko, which r embarrassing (otherwise incriminating) to the FBI
Also, Durham's listed exhibits include the 59-page summary of the FBI's 3 interviews with Danchenko in Jan 2017. They also should be released IN FULL, sans redactions. There's no nat'l security reason to continue to black out whole sections of that doc, either. FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten wrote the summary. Auten's a central figure in #Spygate scandal. His Lync chats r also exhibits
Durham has the authority to unredact relevant sections of the FISAs and Danchenko report. If he doesn't release these exhibits in fuller form, then you know he is part of the cover-up
https://qagg.news/?read=GO31040
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/12/2022 11:21:44
Gettr: p1u1cig7a7a
Durham, who is personally litigating the Danchenko case, is getting basic facts wrong.Durham insists the primary subsource of the Steele dossier was not known until the Fall of 2020. In fact, RealClearInvestigations was the first publication to out Danchenko as the primary subsource on July 24, 2020 â the Summer of 2020. The next day, July 25, the New York Times confirmed RCI's reporting, which was based on congressional investigators and federal arrest records
Here is that story:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/24/meet_steele_dossiers_primary_subsource_fabulist_russian_at_us_think_tank_whose_boozy_past_the_fbi_ignored_124601.html
https://qagg.news/?read=GO31041
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/12/2022 11:54:52
Gettr: p1u1jai25b3
DEVELOPING:FBI counterintelligence veterans tell me they have never heard of the bureau making such a lucrative proposition to an informant, especially without receiving reliable, verifiable information. They say it smacks of bribery:
SPECIAL COUNSEL DURHAM:=
"Did the FBI provide Steele with an incentive to provide that information?"
FBI SUPERVISORY INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTBRIAN AUTEN:
"Yes. The FBI offered Steele $1 million for any evidence to prove allegations [against Trump]."
⌠ANY evidence?! ANY! Clearly, the Comey FBI wanted to, in the words of agent William Barnett, "get Trump" â apparently at any cost. And yet Durham is letting them all off the hook
https://qagg.news/?read=GO31043
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/12/2022 13:19:31
Gettr: p1u1is39ece
REVEALED: Sergei Millian was also a paid FBI informant, along with Danchenko who fabricated him as a source for the dirty dossier. So Steele, Danchenko, Millian, Joffe and Sussmann were all sources or alleged sources for FBI dirt on Trump, and all of them happened to work directly for, or closely with, the FBI. With the exception of Millian (who thanks to FusionGPS conveniently showed up on the FBI's radar when they all needed a Trump-tied "Russian" cut-out to source the wild accusations), they also worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign.For all intents and purposes then, the Clinton campaign dossiers the Steele reports plus the Alfa Bank reports were also IN-HOUSE products of the FBI
https://qagg.news/?read=GO31058
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/12/2022 21:31:18
Gettr: p1u3eqr20de
NEW: Turns out Durham's disagreement (below) with IG Horowitz over his conclusions about Crossfire Hurricane's "predication and how the FBI case was openedâ had nothing to do with the dossier. Durham simply felt the case should have been opened as a preliminary investigation instead of a "full investigation" right out of the gate. By opening it as a full investigation "from Day One," Comey and his team had authority to wiretap Trump advisers, whereas they would not have had that authority under a preliminary investigation. This means, apparently, that Durham buys the FBI's line that the Crossfire team never received the dossier at HQ until Sept 19, 2016 and therefore did not use it as predication
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham
https://qagg.news/?read=GO31093
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 9, 2019
Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham
âI have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the reportâs conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.â
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham
Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump
10/12/2022 21:49:30
Truth Social: 109158450495490798
Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump
10/12/2022 13:21:54
Truth Social: 109156454544461890
MUST READ!
There is no âcrimeâ having to do with the storage of documents at Mar-a- Lago, only in the minds of the Radical Left Lunatics who are destroying our Country, and were just forced by the Courts to give me back much of what they took (STOLE?) during their unprecedented and unnecessary break in of my home. The Clinton âSocks Case,â which is law, says it all belongs to âthe President,â NO CRIME, and the Presidential Record Act is simple, ânegotiate,â and NO CRIME. These people are CRAZY!!!
https://qagg.news/?read=TT2413
The Brief: It Was Okay for Bill Clinton to Keep Presidential Records, But Not Trump?
A former president can keep whatever presidential records he wants and the government has no authority to seize them. Period.
A former president can keep whatever presidential records he wants and the government has no authority to seize them. Period.
That was the Department of Justiceâs legal opinion a decade ago. It was a conclusion shared by both the National Archives and a U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. On that basis, ex-president Bill Clinton was allowed to maintain custody of whatever he wanted, including allegedly classified audio tapes that he stored in his home.
Fast forward to August 8, 2022 when Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered a team of FBI agents to raid and forcibly seize presidential records from the home and office of former President Donald Trump. Garland did it because it was Trump, not Clinton. It was purely political and contrary to the established policy of the DOJ, the controlling law under the Presidential Records Act, and the earlier federal court decision.
The 2012 case arose when the organization Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit seeking Clintonâs documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Litigation ensued to pressure the National Archives into retrieving the materials. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that control over presidential records rests squarely in the hands of a former president:
âThe National Archives does not have the authority to designate materials as âpresidential records.â It lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.â
The judge adopted the very argument made in court by the Justice Department:
â(Seizing the records) is an âextraordinary requestâ that is âunfounded, contrary to the Presidential Records Actâs express terms, and contrary to the traditional principles of administrative lawâ.â
So, there you have it. Garland defied both the DOJâs own legal interpretation of the law and previous court precedent to target Trump in advance of an important national election. His flagrant abuse of power bears the unmistakable stench of partisan politics, which has infected the attorney generalâs corrupt tenure from the outset.
The FBI did not raid Clintonâs home to reclaim records. Nor did the FBI raid former president Barack Obamaâs unsecured warehouse where he stored classified documents for the better part of two years. Lawless raids only happen to Republicans.
The Clinton case is instructive on several levels.
First, not only does it establish the right of a former president to designate what constitutes presidential records, but it also grants him the right under law to maintain control over what he deems to be personal records accrued during his term in office. Second, the case also recognizes the sole discretion of a president to segregate and dispose of records.
Finally, Judge Jacksonâs opinion reinforces the constraints on the National Archives and the Justice Department. Their ability to retrieve documents is limited to a civil action, not criminal seizure.
Thus, in the Trump dispute, the proper remedy was for Garland to file a motion to compel enforcement of the civil subpoena seeking records. Instead, he chose to ignore the Presidential Records Act and raid Trumpâs home under the guise of criminal statutes that have no application. He snookered a magistrate into signing an overly broad general search warrant that is strictly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Garland and the National Archives are contradicting themselves. They assert that Trump has no right to the presidential records. But when Bill Clinton did the same thing, it was perfectly okay. He can keep them. No raid, no crime, no national security concerns. Move alongâŚnothing to see here. If Garland is foolish enough to indict Trump, I look forward to watching how heâll twist himself into a pretzel trying to explain the governmentâs hypocrisy.
All along, the attorney general has claimed âwithout real evidenceâ that the former president harbored still-classified documents in his possession. Trump insists he declassified the records before he left office. Media pundits who know next to nothing about the law have mocked the former presidentâs statements. Naturally, they are wrong.
This invites the questionâŚwhat is the process for declassifying records? For a sitting president, there is no firm protocol. He has unfettered authority and latitude to declassify anything and may do so at will. His power derives from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that identifies the President as Commander In Chief. Typically, presidents follow an informal process of notifying relevant departments that may be affected. But this is neither imperative nor mandatory.
In declassifying, the president can provide a reason or no reason at all. He might memorialize his act in writing if he so desires, but it is not required by any law, rule, or regulation. Indeed, he need not tell anyone. In plain terms, he can simply do it. Agencies and government officials can complain all they want that the president is âjeopardizing national security,â but they have no recourse and cannot override or countermand his decision.
If Trump declassified the documents in question, then this entire controversy is about custody of presidential papers under the meaning of the Presidential Records Act. As the Clinton case underscores, these kinds of disputes belong in civil court. But Garland and the FBI took a different course. Why? The answer should be obvious to any reasonable observer.
This was always about politics, not national security. The latter was simply a convenient pretext. The true intent was to bludgeon Republicans politically with the cudgel of a raid and the corresponding threat of a criminal indictment that was guaranteed to gin up the Trump-hating media into a frenzy right before an election.
The FBI has served as witting accessories to Garlandâs machinations. They have weaponized their immense powers to persecute political adversaries. President Joe Biden has created the equivalent of a secret police state. The litmus test for thuggery is your party affiliation. Itâs not just Donald Trump, the FBI and DOJ want to crush all political opposition. If you dare to protest policies or disagree with the Biden agenda, you can expect a heavy knock on the door. Or maybe they wonât knock at all.
Recently, nearly two dozen whistleblowers within the FBI stepped forward to members of congress exposing how the bureau has been running a protection racket for the Bidens, hiding incriminating evidence of Hunter Bidenâs influence-peddling schemes, halting the criminal investigation, and spreading lies about Russian âdisinformation.â But thatâs not all.
The whistleblowers have offered detailed evidence of how the FBI spies on law-abiding Americans to help advance a political agenda. They manipulate crime statistics and inflate the number of domestic terrorism cases. They conduct raids without legal justification by lying to judges. SWAT teams are being misused to make misdemeanor arrests. Overzealous agents are banging on the doors of people who were nowhere near the nationâs Capitol on January 6th.
Those honorable whistleblowers who have had the courage to come forward are being punished by top brass at the FBI, in direct violation of laws forbidding retaliation. Recently, Merrick Garland sent out a department-wide directive ordering agents never to speak with members of congress. Garlandâs missive is illegal and violates the Whistleblower Protection Act ânot that he cares.
FBI Director Christopher Wray has done nothing to cleanup his cesspool of an agency. To the contrary, he covers up acts of malfeasance and misfeasance while enabling Garlandâs authoritarian lawlessness. Concerned parents who complain at school board meetings are treated as âdomestic terroristsâ and investigated by the FBI. Escalating attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers are largely ignored with zero arrests. Both the FBI and DOJ look the other way when demonstrators shout threats at conservative Supreme Court Justices outside their homes, in direct violation of the law.
None of this is surprising given the shameful record of the FBI. Under Wrayâs predecessor James Comey, the agency lied to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trumpâs campaign, doctored evidence against him, and used a phony âdossierâ as the basis for a corrupted âcollusionâ investigation of the president that they knew was utterly baseless. Sadly, this is what our once vaunted law enforcement agency has become âa powerful political cabal that targets innocent Americans and routinely violates their civil rights.
Both Wray and Garland have squandered trust in government. They should be sacked or impeached. Reform is desperately needed.
https://thegreggjarrett.com/the-brief-it-was-okay-for-bill-clinton-to-keep-presidential-records-but-not-trump/
paulsperry / @paulsperry
10/12/2022 21:59:34
Gettr: p1u36l6c0f0
Think about all the FBI revelations that are just now coming out in these indictments and trials after being bottled up for 5 or 6 years. Just imagine what bombshells are still being covered up! The drip-drip-drip nature of disclosures, however, allows the media to ignore the story, while allowing the dirty cops to slither away (or do damage control on CNN &MSNBC). The heretofore ineffective Durham, who is at risk of losing even the otherwise slam-dunk Danchenko case, still has a chance to redeem himself by tying the many scattered pieces of the scandal together for the public in his final report. If it is done right, and written in an ineluctably factual style, it could be devastating and hard for the Washington punditry to dismiss it as any kind of partisan finding
https://qagg.news/?read=GO31094
checkinboxagain, tyvm
>>17692409 pb
Can you recheck your email? tyvm