Thanks for posting that, Frisco. Interesting even if we think he is wrong about some things. He would obviously know McCabe so you could always show him McCabe's testimony to Congress that without the dossier there is no FISA. The dossier was key to the whole takedown attempt and that's not even arguable at this point.

And to some of the other comments I've always thought this is all far bigger than the FBI breaking some rules to get Trump. Obama had been spying on and using the govt against his enemies for years. The spying and unmasking will go back to Mueller's time at the FBI. When they realized Trump may actually beat Hillary they had to begin the coverup.

Agreed. I think they're afraid an outsider is going to upset the apple cart and all the shenanigans they've been pulling will get exposed.

I definitely think it was that for those who were in the know about unlawful spying and surveillance but I think a few others were more simply subject to their biases and to the progressive groupthink that is becoming dominant in federal bureacracy and is clouding objective judgement when it goes unchallenged internally. It's not an excuse, but is a partial explanation.

I did say that once. He wasn't buying it. I even said that either McCabe lied under oath or the dossier was the reason for the FISA. I forget what the response was, but he still claimed that the FISA application would never be awarded for that. Surely there had to be other evidence.

I think that's why it's really important that the FISA application is declassified. It should answer a lot of these questions.

Quote:

---

FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that he wouldn't use the word "spying" to describe the bureau's investigative work, breaking from Attorney General William Barr's use of the term in reference to the probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

"Well, it's not the term I would use. Lots of people have different colloquial phrases," Wray said during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. "I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance."

---

Quote:

---

Wray said the FBI went through the proper channels in relation to the 2016 surveillance, adding that it's been "publicly disclosed there were a number of relevant warrants." He also said the FBI was working to help Barr "understand better" how the investigation was launched.

---

LINK

Warrants, plural. Wray is being pretty swampy in his testimony, though. Has to protect the bureau, I guess.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I bet the majority thought they were doing the right thing.

---

A higher calling? Horse puckey. Trump has been in the public eye for 40 years. He's been on state federal governments' radar for most of that time. After several months of trying to track down the allegations of the Steele dossier, it should have occurred to someone that it was Russian disinformation. These were supposedly the best of the best counter-intel people.

And they were so easily horn swoggled? Not buying it.

---

Agree. BTW, my FBI contact (now retired/active beginning late 60's) doesn't tattle...but when asked (by me) whether in his opinion the FBI had become "politicized"...his reply = "No doubt".

FriscoKid said:

---

I did say that once. He wasn't buying it. I even said that either McCabe lied under oath or the dossier was the reason for the FISA. I forget what the response was, but he still claimed that the FISA application would never be awarded for that. Surely there had to be other evidence.

I think that's why it's really important that the FISA application is declassified. It should answer a lot of these questions.

---

Not arguing, but you're ignoring the possibility that the FISA Judge may have been 'like minded' and cooperated.

whatthehey78 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

I did say that once. He wasn't buying it. I even said that either McCabe lied under oath or the dossier was the reason for the FISA. I forget what the response was, but he still claimed that the FISA application would never be awarded for that. Surely there had to be other evidence.

I think that's why it's really important that the FISA application is declassified. It should answer a lot of these questions.

---

Not arguing, but you're ignoring the possibility that the FISA Judge may have been 'like minded' and cooperated.

---

I totally agree.

whatthehey78 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

I did say that once. He wasn't buying it. I even said that either McCabe lied under oath or the dossier was the reason for the FISA. I forget what the response was, but he still claimed that the FISA application would never be awarded for that. Surely there had to be other evidence.

I think that's why it's really important that the FISA application is declassified. It should answer a lot of these questions.

---

You're ignoring the possibility that the FISA Judge may have been 'like minded' and cooperated.

---

The judge on the first application was Rosemary Collyer. She found out a few days later from Admiral Rogers about the hanky-panky going on in the FBI with unfettered access to their database by CIA "contractors' or fronts.

Granted, that's a separate issue than whether she was lied to in any particular application but I'd expect she put her guard up and warned her fellow FISC judges to do the same. Might explain the recusal of Strzok's buddy, Judge Contreras, on the Flynn matter, somewhat later.

At least were I in her position, that's what I'd do.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

FBI Director Christopher Wray said Tuesday that he wouldn't use the word "spying" to describe the bureau's investigative work, breaking from Attorney General William Barr's use of the term in reference to the probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

"Well, it's not the term I would use. Lots of people have different colloquial phrases," Wray said during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee. "I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance."

---

Quote:

---

Wray said the FBI went through the proper channels in relation to the 2016 surveillance, adding that it's been "publicly disclosed there were a number of relevant warrants." He also said the FBI was working to help Barr "understand better" how the investigation was launched.

---

LINK

Warrants, plural. Wray is being pretty swampy in his testimony, though. Has to protect the bureau, I guess.

---

"Went through the proper channels" doesn't mean much

Quote:

---

"Went through the proper channels" doesn't mean much

---

Why I said he was using swamp-speak. He was later asked if he knew of any inappropriate spying. He paused before answering and then employed lawyer speak, of nothing within his personal knowledge.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"Went through the proper channels" doesn't mean much

---

Why I said he was using swamp-speak. He was later asked if he knew of any inappropriate spying. He paused before answering and then employed lawyer speak, of nothing within his personal knowledge.

---

IMHO, he (Wray) often hedges his response and comes across as someone tooooooo cautious to be a real leader.

War Damn Turtle speaks.

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed that last night. Thanks for posting. Both Gowdy and Starr are correct. DOJ policy should prohibit Mueller from going on a bash Trump rant in any testimony. (Of course, DOJ policy prohibited Comey from doing what he did in regards to Hillary and Obama should have fired him then, just on principle.)

Starr's point about the leak of the Mueller letter being a disservice to Barr is correct, too. Was a very dirty thing to do. Even writing that letter in the first place after Barr afforded Mueller ample opportunity to review his summary of the principle conclusions, was crappy and likely a set-up. Mueller was playing pure politics there.

But I think Starr didn't quite go far enough in his criticism of Mueller. The issue is how much of a wildcard Mueller is at this point. Obviously his legacy is of little concern to him, nor is following the rule of law or the DOJ policies. He didn't perform his duties under his appointment. He refused to make any charging decision on the obstruction, while simultaneously denying that the OLC letter (indicting a sitting President is a no-no) played a role in his non-decision making. I have repeatedly made that same point, although Gowdy was more blunt:"Indict or shut up."

---

Well, as a taxpayer shouldn't we ask for a refund since "He didn't perform his duties under his appointment.".

Now that would be justice, make the team refund all or part of the millions paid these clowns

About time. Either Mifsud is a Russian agent or he's a Western intelligence asset. And he taught our FBI and CIA spooks. And hobnobbed with the intelligence community heads.

If the "Mifsud is a Russian spy" column is knocked down, the only back up they have is the Steele Dossier as a justification for the spying. That presents additional problems on the timing issues. They were spying long before August 2016 when they claim they got the Steele Dossier. Also, Strzok had made reference to multiple versions of the Steele Dossier floating around.

Multiple versions? And no one was suspicious?

aggiehawg said:

---

About time. Either Mifsud is a Russian agent or he's a Western intelligence asset. And he taught our FBI and CIA spooks. And hobnobbed with the intelligence community heads.

If the "Mifsud is a Russian spy" column is knocked down, the only back up they have is the Steele Dossier as a justification for the spying. That presents additional problems on the timing issues. They were spying long before August 2016 when they claim they got the Steele Dossier. Also, Strzok had made reference to multiple versions of the Steele Dossier floating around.

Multiple versions? And no one was suspicious?

---

Do we know if Mifsud is still alive? He's a big loose end that a bunch of people would surely like to see tied up

We don't know if he is still alive or not.

If he is, he's got the life expectancy of a mayfly

captkirk said:

---

If he is, he's got the life expectancy of a mayfly

---

I would expect he has taken that contingency into account and has spilled his guts. He has a lawyer, I'd expect he has some sealed materials or knows where they are located.

After all, this guy trained spooks.

I've been on this thread and posted off and on for months, so forgive me if I don't remember someone else suggesting this.

What are the odds Comey announced "insufficient intent" with respect to Hillary because of the lead up to Crossfire Hurricane? I know the dates don't line up exactly--Comey announced about Hillary on July 5 and the message about Downer's meeting with Popadopoulus (sp?) was 3 weeks later. However, by July 5, Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee who Comey may have actually feared was under Putin's influence (at least). If Comey believed Putin had too much influence on Trump, the bathroom server becomes a much much lesser evil.

Put another way, could it be that Strzok and/or others played up the Russia angle in May/June of 2016, convinced Comey that Hillary was likely the lesser of two evils, and convinced him to do the public dirty work.

I'm not sold on this and it doesn't make Comey a white hat. But it might explain the lame ways in which Comey has tried to justify himself. It also might explain why he was kind of left out to dry on some of this, once a patsy's been used, you toss them aside.

Anyway, wacky theory, flame away, YMMV, etc.

Quote:

---

What are the odds Comey announced "insufficient intent" with respect to Hillary because of the lead up to Crossfire Hurricane?

---

Slim to none and Slim just left the building.

There is reason to assume that the spying started in late 2015 and was more broad than just Trump. The Hillary investigation was just getting started in August 2015.

Patentmike said:

---

However, by July 5, Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee who Comey may have actually feared was under Putin's influence (at least). If Comey believed Putin had too much influence on Trump, the bathroom server becomes a much much lesser evil.

---

Bull***** No reasonable person ever believed that. Especially not the head of the FBI.

There must be some pretty damning stuff in those to continue to stonewall. So here's the only silver lining I can think of--Comey is about to be indicted. (Crosses fingers and toes.)

https://theweek.com/speedreads/839839/robert-mueller-leaving-justice-department-within-coming-days-spokesman-says

Quote:

---

President Trump is pulling out all the stops to prevent Special Counsel Robert Mueller from testifying before Congress, and as long as Mueller works at the Justice Department, he needs sign-off from Attorney General William Barr to testify. Barr has said publicly that he has "no objection to Bob Mueller personally testifying," he reportedly hasn't changed that position, and he told the Senate last week that the White House isn't exerting influence on whether Mueller should be allowed to testify.

House Democrats have tentatively scheduled Mueller to testify on May 15. Once Mueller leaves the Justice Department, Trump will have even less control over whether he testifies, and Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel's office, told The Hill on Monday that Mueller "will be concluding his service within the coming days." He did not elaborate. "Coming days" is pretty vague, and Carr, it should be noted, used the same phrase a month ago; on April 5, he told Quartzthat Mueller "will be concluding his service within the coming days."

---

aggiehawg said:

---

There must be some pretty damning stuff in those to continue to stonewall. So here's the only silver lining I can think of--Comey is about to be indicted. (Crosses fingers and toes.)

---

Is this what Joe DiGenova was hinting at this week? And if the FBI says no, can the DOJ override? Sorry about my limited knowledge on all this. Just a layman.

Ginova said an OIG report on Comey would come this week IIRC and it would not be good news for Comey.

McGahn is no longer in the Executive Branch, but is being held to executive privilege. Seems Mueller would be in the same boat.

What happens to someone who violates executive privilege?

What I mean is...Pres Trump appear to now be asserting Executive privilege, so documents, conversations etc McGahn has been privy to are privileged and the White House has indicated that requests for them should come to the WH.

I would expect the WH would take similar approach to Mueller. While I don't know why or even if there's any point in Mueller testifying in this situation, but what happens to Mueller if he subsequently testifies to Congress and blathers on and on detailing information the WH has declared privileged?

will25u said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

There must be some pretty damning stuff in those to continue to stonewall. So here's the only silver lining I can think of--Comey is about to be indicted. (Crosses fingers and toes.)

---

Is this what Joe DiGenova was hinting at this week? And if the FBI says no, can the DOJ override? Sorry about my limited knowledge on all this. Just a layman.

---

This is the DOJ, not the FBI filing this. And I am just speculating as a pending grand jury investigation is just one several reasons they might have to keep these things secret. The DOJ says he named sources and methods in his memos, for instance. Named foreign governments involved and had other classified information in them.

Although I am not currently seeing how his memos might affect any other Mueller referrals, slight possibility that may be the reason.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442592-steeles-stunning-pre-fisa-confession-informant-needed-to-air-trump-dirt

Quote:

---

f ever there were an admission that taints the FBI's secret warrant to surveil Donald Trump's campaign, it sat buried for more than two-and-a-half years in the files of a high-ranking State Department official.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec's written account of her Oct. 11, 2016, meeting with FBI informant Christopher Steele shows the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded British intelligence operative admitted that his research was political and facing an Election Day deadline.

And that confession occurred 10 days before the FBI used Steele's now-discredited dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign's ties to Russia.

Steele's client "is keen to see this information come to light prior to November 8," the date of the 2016 election, Kavalec wrote in a typed summary of her meeting with Steele and Tatyana Duran, a colleague from Steele's Orbis Security firm. The memos were unearthed a few days ago through open-records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United.
..........
For the first time, we have written proof the U.S. government knew well before the FBI secured the FISA warrant that Steele had a political motive and Election Day deadline to make his dossier public.

And we know that information was transmitted before the Carter Page FISA warrant to one or more people whose job is so sensitive that their identity had to be protected. That means there is little chance the FBI didn't know about Steele's political client, or the Election Day deadline, before requesting the FISA warrant.
..........

---

You need to read the whole article. Not only was this info transmitted up the line via email, they classified it as secret, kept it hidden, & refused to release it to anyone even up to a few days ago under Wray's tenure. The Swamp protects itself, & Wray is part of The Swamp.

Wray is a useless POS

I think it was Victor Davis Hanson that I watched the other day and he said the same about Wray. I was holding out hope.... Sad.