I have been really impressed with Grassley and his methods. He comes off as a southern good ole boy but he's sharp as a tack. Very methodical and deliberate in his questioning and does mince a lot of words.

Many question that I am anxious to know the answer to. Also very noted is the list of names this is CC'd to. Warner and Schiff being directly tied to this and will be copied on the replies from Horowitz, just shows how completely dishonest those two are. Coincidently these are also the two caught trying to directly 'collude" with russians to get dirt on Trump. Even though in Schiff's case he was being duped, his intention were clear.

Haven't seen this reported anywhere yet but it's interesting to find out Glenn Simpson's (FGPS) is married to Mary Jacoby, who was employed at Clinton's Rose Law Firm, (Whitewater), and her father is deeply connected with the Clintons. (Jon Jacoby of Stephens Group). Everything leads to the Clintons, 320 million people in the US, and billions worldwide, and everyone involved in this thing is linked to the Clintons.

drcrinum said:

---

---

My suspicion for months ... Sessions has an off-the-beltway DOJ prosecutor and an undisclosed grand jury working behind the scenes with OIG and providing Horowitz with prosecutorial leverage.

If true, the implications are as huge as the IG report itself.

I sure hope so!

Where are these absentee FISC judges that better be saying they were duped over this Dossier mess, not one official statement, nothing, radio silence. Not one judge calling in those that were doing the duping on these applications. I mean if I'm a judge and it comes to light what has, somebody is going to be drug up on the carpet. Unless of course they were aware and granted the warrants anyway, that really opens up a can of worms within the judiciary and the FISC should be under direct fire if that were so.

An official statement from judiciary would be completely inappropriate.

Many thanks for posting that letter to Horowitz. It lays out in detail how this case should be investigated and contains some real jewels. TCTH seems to be the only place that knows what is going on...the MSM is clueless, either on purpose (political) or because investigative reporters are a thing of the past (incompetence).

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I have been really impressed with Grassley and his methods. He comes off as a southern good ole boy but he's sharp as a tack. Very methodical and deliberate in his questioning and does mince a lot of words.

---

I wish the wheels of justice turned more quickly, but Grassley has been great. His letters and questions have been thorough, and you can tell he doesn't suffer fools. I hope to see big results from all of this.

drcrinum said:

---

---

Confirmation when we learn of someone actually appearing as a subpoenaed witness to any of these rumored grand juries.

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

My suspicion for months ... Sessions has an off-the-beltway DOJ prosecutor and an undisclosed grand jury working behind the scenes with OIG and providing Horowitz with prosecutorial leverage.

If true, the implications are as huge as the IG report itself.

---

First appendix in the OIG report:
Indictments

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Where are these absentee FISC judges that better be saying they were duped over this Dossier mess, not one official statement, nothing, radio silence. Not one judge calling in those that were doing the duping on these applications. I mean if I'm a judge and it comes to light what has, somebody is going to be drug up on the carpet. Unless of course they were aware and granted the warrants anyway, that really opens up a can of worms within the judiciary and the FISC should be under direct fire if that were so.

---

The supervising judge of the FISC is awaiting DOJ's production of the their files on the Page warrant to see if they match the documents filed with FISC. That is part of conducting their own investigation of what happened in the FISC.

BTW, judges are prohibited from publicly commenting on cases, particularly classified ones such as a FISA proceeding. But that prohibition doesn't include having a sit-down with their supervising judge.

IOW, there are a lot of balls in the air, at the moment and no one wants to get out over their skis until the full picture comes together. A sitting grand jury looking at this stuff further requires caution.

BUT, the release of the Strzok/Page texts about Judge Contreras being a good friend of Strzok's tells me Contreras has already been exonerated or indicted. That would be directly within the purview of a grand jury.

Y'all will have to excuse my ignorance here, but does "First appendix in the OIG report: indictments" mean that forward copies of the report are out?

Or, since you have a smily face icon at the top of your post, is that wishful thinking?

Work is really hindering me keeping up with my passion since December 9th, 2017, and that's this damned thread!

RyanAg08 said:

---

benchmark said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

My suspicion for months ... Sessions has an off-the-beltway DOJ prosecutor and an undisclosed grand jury working behind the scenes with OIG and providing Horowitz with prosecutorial leverage.

If true, the implications are as huge as the IG report itself.

---

First appendix in the OIG report:
Indictments

---

Or at least criminal referrals.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

I have been really impressed with Grassley and his methods. He comes off as a southern good ole boy but he's sharp as a tack. Very methodical and deliberate in his questioning and does mince a lot of words.

---

I wish the wheels of justice turned more quickly, but Grassley has been great. His letters and questions have been thorough, and you can tell he doesn't suffer fools. I hope to see big results from all of this.

---

Further, he already knows the answers to those questions. Just seeing how many people want to fall on what swords.

As the information unfolds and is pointing more and more towards criminal charges being levied against these public officials, my thoughts have moved on to whether or not it will be possible to secure a conviction. The media has done a horrendous job of keeping the general public informed of the facts. I myself would not have been aware of much of what is going on had I not checked out this thread about a month ago. With our justice system giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused, I don't see how a jury can be composed without people having been influenced by CNN or other left wing apologist media. I don't have any faith that jurists would be able to see past their own confirmation bias. Without truth in journalism, half of the country will merely see this as politically motivated persecution.

I have written a brief summary covering some of the more important Questions IMO asked in Grassley's letter to Horowitz per Question number. Too bad one can't copy & paste portions of images.

6) Reading between the lines, there was a previous FISA warrant application submitted on Carter Page while he was affiliated with the Trump Campaign and it was denied. Apparently the dossier was not included in this earlier application.

10-12) Did the FBI adhere to the Woods Procedures in the Carter Page FISA warrant application and renewals? (Clearly not: "Under the Woods procedures, each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen must be thoroughly vetted for accuracy, and presented to the court only if verified."
https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/02/07/the-woods-procedures/

14-15) What parts if any of the dossier had been independently verified?

21-25) Bruce Ohr passing info between Steele/Fusion GPS and the FBI - ethics problems. Why was it never disclosed to the FISC that Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS? Why wasn't the FISC informed that Steele was 'desperate' to prevent Trump from being elected? (Bruce Ohr has been interviewed 12 different times by the FBI per Footnote #5 on Page 2.)

26-27) Who at the FBI/DOJ was aware that Fusion GPS was subject to a FARA violation complaint concerning acting as an unregistered foreign agent regarding Russia & the Magnitsky Act sanctions? Why wasn't this disclosed to the FISC?

28) Why weren't President-elect Trump and/or any Trump Campaign officials informed about the counter-intelligence concerns regarding Page, Papadopoulos and Manafort?

29) Why was it leaked to the MSM that Trump had been briefed by Comey about the contents of the dossier? Was this part of a counter-intelligence operation?

31) Was Flynn surveillance conducted as part of a criminal or a counter-intelligence investigation? Were there drafts and edits of the 302s, and if so, under whose authority? (Sounds like there were.)

I'll be happy to let blindey and Hawg bring edification to your comment, but I would actually think it might be a good thing.

Once any jury is "enlightened" by how godawful the Dem party, and the previous administration, are, it will hopefully make a difference.

Of course, I could be wrong!

hawk1689 said:

---

As the information unfolds and is pointing more and more towards criminal charges being levied against these public officials, my thoughts have moved on to whether or not it will be possible to secure a conviction. The media has done a horrendous job of keeping the general public informed of the facts. I myself would not have been aware of much of what is going on had I not checked out this thread about a month ago. With our justice system giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused, I don't see how a jury can be composed without people having been influenced by CNN or other left wing apologist media. I don't have any faith that jurists would be able to see past their own confirmation bias. Without truth in journalism, half of the country will merely see this as politically motivated persecution.

---

A grand jury, as the saying goes, can be convinced to indict a ham sandwich.

techno-ag said:

---

hawk1689 said:

---

As the information unfolds and is pointing more and more towards criminal charges being levied against these public officials, my thoughts have moved on to whether or not it will be possible to secure a conviction. The media has done a horrendous job of keeping the general public informed of the facts. I myself would not have been aware of much of what is going on had I not checked out this thread about a month ago. With our justice system giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused, I don't see how a jury can be composed without people having been influenced by CNN or other left wing apologist media. I don't have any faith that jurists would be able to see past their own confirmation bias. Without truth in journalism, half of the country will merely see this as politically motivated persecution.

---

A grand jury, as the saying goes, can be convinced to indict a ham sandwich.

---

If they really want to impress someone, indict a Clinton...

Quote:

---

Planning For OIG Release President Trump Hires Joe diGenova

...How do you introduce the scale and scope of corruption to almost half the country who have relied upon the false narrative delivered by fake news for the past two years?

Answer: You assemble a strategic communications team, timed to activate when a key series of events takes place. Joe diGenova is part of that strategic communications team. The triggering event is the OIG release. The purpose of the team is to help the news consumer digest the corruption elephant one bite at a time....

---

diGenova is a master communicator for certain, and he is extremely knowledgeable about the FBI/DOJ scheming which occurred under Obama. We have observed his videos and listened to his audios on our thread. He is a former SC and US attorney; Gregg Jarrett, the attorney on Foxnews, says diGenova is considered the best attorney in Washington, DC.

Don't forget his wife is Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the Uranium One whistleblower. I wonder what she's relayed to him in private.

friscodick said:

---

Don't forget his wife is Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the Uranium One whistleblower. I wonder what she's relayed to him in private.

---

I knew they were in practice together, but I didn't know they were married. Thanks for the info.

Been semi-out of the loop the past week. When are the latest rumblings regarding OIG report release?

Tailgate88 said:

---

Been semi-out of the loop the past week. When are the latest rumblings regarding OIG report release?

---

May

DiGenova is a very smart guy & well regarded.

But Jarrett is a doofus. His opinion & endorsment mean nothing.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Been semi-out of the loop the past week. When are the latest rumblings regarding OIG report release?

---

May

---

I heard it will come out around the time George RR Martin releases The Winds of Winter...seriously though, I'm getting sick of waiting.

Great timeline of the scandal. This explains why Joe was picked by Trump.

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

Planning For OIG Release President Trump Hires Joe diGenova

...How do you introduce the scale and scope of corruption to almost half the country who have relied upon the false narrative delivered by fake news for the past two years?

Answer: You assemble a strategic communications team, timed to activate when a key series of events takes place. Joe diGenova is part of that strategic communications team. The triggering event is the OIG release. The purpose of the team is to help the news consumer digest the corruption elephant one bite at a time....

---

diGenova is a master communicator for certain, and he is extremely knowledgeable about the FBI/DOJ scheming which occurred under Obama. We have observed his videos and listened to his audios on our thread. He is a former SC and US attorney; Gregg Jarrett, the attorney on Foxnews, says diGenova is considered the best attorney in Washington, DC.

---

Bolded:

I think he means - "Corruption donkey"

VaultingChemist said:

---

Great timeline of the scandal. This explains why Joe was picked by Trump.

---

This guy is GOOD

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Great timeline of the scandal. This explains why Joe was picked by Trump.

---

This guy is GOOD

---

Just watched that entire interview. That was excellent.

Quote:

---

Americans have grown increasingly skeptical since 2016 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an institution they once regarded as the world's greatest law-enforcement agency. I spent 33 years in a variety of positions with the FBI, and I am troubled by this loss of faith. Many lapses have come to light, and each has been thoroughly covered. But why did they happen? The answer is a cultural change that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
For reasons that seemed justified at the time, the bureau set out to become an "intelligence driven" organization. That had unintended consequences. The FBI's culture had been rooted in law enforcement. A law-enforcement agency deals in facts, to which agents may have to swear in court. That is why "lack of candor" has always been a firing offense. An intelligence agency deals in estimates and best guesses. Guesses are not allowed in court. Intelligence agencies often bend a rule, or shade the truth, to please their political masters. In the FBI, as a result, there now is politicization, polarization, and no sense of the bright line that separates the legal from the extralegal.
Part of making the FBI more like an intelligence agency was the centralization of case management at headquarters in Washington, rather than the field offices around the country. With this came the placing of operational decisions in the hands of more "politically sensitive" individuals at headquarters.
The 9/11 investigations and related matters were the first to be moved from the field to headquarters. But the trend culminated with the investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and Russian election interferenceboth run from headquarters as well. Levels of reviewand independent judgmentwere eliminated. Thus, we learn that Peter Strzok who held the relatively high rank of deputy assistant director of counterintelligencewas himself conducting interviews in both politically sensitive investigations.
After 9/11 there was much talk of the negative consequences of a "wall" between criminal and intelligence investigations. There was alwaysit was part of our culturea discussion about how to proceed at the outset of a counterintelligence or terrorism investigation. To seek a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its lower standard of probable cause, when one would ultimately pursue a prosecution was considered an abuse of FISA. It is still an abuse. To shade the truth in a FISA applicationas occurred with the " Steele Dossier"is characteristic behavior of an intelligence agency, not a "swear to tell the truth" law-enforcement organization.
FISA was never intended as a tool to pursue Americans. It was to be used to gather intelligence about agents of a foreign power operating in the U.S. The aim of this monitoring was to produce intelligence for our national decision makers. It was not intended to be used in criminal prosecutions. If an American is suspected of operating as an agent of a foreign power, that individual should be pursued under the Espionage Act, a criminal statute. The fruits of that monitoring could then be used in court for a prosecution. The use of FISA to target a U.S. citizen is the most egregious abuse uncovered so far.
As former FBI Director William Webster repeatedly told us agents: "We must do the job the American people expect of us, in the way that the Constitution demands of us." All actions and decisions must once again be viewed though that prism. The Justice Department inspector general and others are now looking at specific alleged abuses.
Perhaps Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's firing is a start. Mr. McCabe's statement, in response to his firing, that "the big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized" is, ironically, true.
What is needed is much morea renewal of the FBI's culture. When the smoke clears from the current controversies, Director Christopher Wray must help the bureau turn the page on this intelligence chapter and get the bureau back to the law-enforcement culture of fact-finding and truth-telling that once made us all so proud.
Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attach.

---

Excellent read. Hopefully Wray takes note of this.

The only place I read about the OIG report is on this thread. It's been dangled out there for months, but I suspect that when it finally drops we won't see much about it in the major outlets....and that presumes there is something in it worth reading.

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

Americans have grown increasingly skeptical since 2016 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an institution they once regarded as the world's greatest law-enforcement agency. I spent 33 years in a variety of positions with the FBI, and I am troubled by this loss of faith. Many lapses have come to light, and each has been thoroughly covered. But why did they happen? The answer is a cultural change that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
For reasons that seemed justified at the time, the bureau set out to become an "intelligence driven" organization. That had unintended consequences. The FBI's culture had been rooted in law enforcement. A law-enforcement agency deals in facts, to which agents may have to swear in court. That is why "lack of candor" has always been a firing offense. An intelligence agency deals in estimates and best guesses. Guesses are not allowed in court. Intelligence agencies often bend a rule, or shade the truth, to please their political masters. In the FBI, as a result, there now is politicization, polarization, and no sense of the bright line that separates the legal from the extralegal.
Part of making the FBI more like an intelligence agency was the centralization of case management at headquarters in Washington, rather than the field offices around the country. With this came the placing of operational decisions in the hands of more "politically sensitive" individuals at headquarters.
The 9/11 investigations and related matters were the first to be moved from the field to headquarters. But the trend culminated with the investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and Russian election interferenceboth run from headquarters as well. Levels of reviewand independent judgmentwere eliminated. Thus, we learn that Peter Strzok who held the relatively high rank of deputy assistant director of counterintelligencewas himself conducting interviews in both politically sensitive investigations.
After 9/11 there was much talk of the negative consequences of a "wall" between criminal and intelligence investigations. There was alwaysit was part of our culturea discussion about how to proceed at the outset of a counterintelligence or terrorism investigation. To seek a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its lower standard of probable cause, when one would ultimately pursue a prosecution was considered an abuse of FISA. It is still an abuse. To shade the truth in a FISA applicationas occurred with the " Steele Dossier"is characteristic behavior of an intelligence agency, not a "swear to tell the truth" law-enforcement organization.
FISA was never intended as a tool to pursue Americans. It was to be used to gather intelligence about agents of a foreign power operating in the U.S. The aim of this monitoring was to produce intelligence for our national decision makers. It was not intended to be used in criminal prosecutions. If an American is suspected of operating as an agent of a foreign power, that individual should be pursued under the Espionage Act, a criminal statute. The fruits of that monitoring could then be used in court for a prosecution. The use of FISA to target a U.S. citizen is the most egregious abuse uncovered so far.
As former FBI Director William Webster repeatedly told us agents: "We must do the job the American people expect of us, in the way that the Constitution demands of us." All actions and decisions must once again be viewed though that prism. The Justice Department inspector general and others are now looking at specific alleged abuses.
Perhaps Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's firing is a start. Mr. McCabe's statement, in response to his firing, that "the big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized" is, ironically, true.
What is needed is much morea renewal of the FBI's culture. When the smoke clears from the current controversies, Director Christopher Wray must help the bureau turn the page on this intelligence chapter and get the bureau back to the law-enforcement culture of fact-finding and truth-telling that once made us all so proud.
Mr. Baker is a retired FBI special agent and legal attach.

---

Excellent read. Hopefully Wray takes note of this.

---

This times Eleventy Billion!