Isn’t our side in power?
Is the DOJ and FBI being run by a bunch of rogue players with no boss to run things by?
So Asst Attorneys simply say no and that’s the end of it? Who’s their boss?
Why are these scumbags being allowed to stonewall anything they don’t want released?
Am I missing something here?
It is important for everyone to re-read comments from Barr back in May when he was interviewed by a CBS reporter.
Attorney General William Barr said in an interview that he doesn’t think Obama-era Department of Justice officials overseeing the Russia investigation committed treason “as a legal matter,” but he does have concerns about how they conducted the probe.
“Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest and better good, They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have.”
This sounds to me like we are going to get a whole bunch of, they didn’t do anything illegal but their methods and actions were not in line with department policy. Just look at the evidence so far – McCabe, Wolfe and now Comey. Decline to prosecute! NADA!
So wrist slaps, retirements, new departmental policies and more training WITHOUT ANY indictments is how this will NEVER HAPPEN again and end IMO.
The IG report on FISA should be coming out in a couple of weeks and IMO if indictments don’t follow shortly thereafter then it’s clear to me at that point, Barr is a black hat.
I’m slightly worried about the release of these memos. I dont trust Comey with anything, and this could be based on fantasy to create a narrative to protect himself and implicate anyone he wishes. All he needs is an imagination and sense of superiority which would lead to exhaustive justification. He has both in spades.
Sen. Shaheen: “Did FBI agents get warrants for information as part of their counter-surveillance investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election?”
Mr. Wray: “Well, I want to be a little bit careful about what I can discuss here, but I think it’s been publicly disclosed that there were a number of relevant warrants that were secured in the course of that investigation.”
We know that there was at least one FISA warrant on former Trump adviser Carter Page. There may have been others as well. Former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort have both been mentioned as possibilities.
Shaheen then asked Wray if the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Wray was very careful in his answer. Note that, despite the many misleading headlines claiming otherwise, this is the only place where Shaheen actually asked directly about spying in relation to the Trump campaign:
Sen. Shaheen: “And do you believe, Director Wray, that the FBI and its agents spied into the 2016 presidential campaign operation?”
Mr. Wray: “Well, again, I want to be careful about how I answer that question here because there is an ongoing inspector general investigation. I have my own thoughts based on the limited information I’ve seen so far but I don’t think it would be right or appropriate for me to share those at this stage, because I really do think it’s important for everybody to respect the independent inspector general’s investigation, which I think this line of questioning starts to implicate and I think it’s very important for everybody to be able to have full confidence in his review.”
Wray confirmed the ongoing FISA investigation being conducted by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz but was careful not to comment on it. Nor did Wray confirm or deny spying on the Trump campaign. Also of note, Wray did not in any way dispute Shaheen’s use of the word “spied.”
Shaheen tried one last time to establish that there had been no illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign. Wray’s answer provided a host of additional headlines:
Sen. Shaheen: “At this time do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the FBI occurred?”
Mr. Wray: “I don’t think I personally have any evidence of that sort.”
Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange
A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept, the television evening news programs and the publications of the pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political, financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.” This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/08/02/pers-a02.html
Anons,
Can POTUS run as an independent in 2020?
HOLY FUCK