SCIF's under the Obama administration appear to have been a complete joke. I've read countless accounts of Hillary, Huma, Strzok, Holder, being in SCIFs with cell phones. The Hillary SCIF in Chappaqua, NY, with the maid going in and out of it, and it being unsecured. And with all the other documented breeches of Classified Material Protocols, nothing surprises me with that bunch.
I've said before and I'll say again that it almost seems like the dims are reckless with classified info deliberately so our foes can get their hands on it. We know Obama wants to see America brought down a few pegs because he said so repeatedly (albeit in different terms).
But I'm feeling pretty good that there will be a list of people getting convicted, My lofty members on the wish list are Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCade, Jarrett, and any underlings that don't flip on the higher ups. Main Goal being, get our system back on track, because the wheels came off the truck.
You and I and a few others here, grew up in an era that the establishment was a good thing, and the system really did work. It's been *******ized so badly in the last 25-30 years, it's hard to look at. And by establishment I don't mean all the politicians, because crooked politicians have been around forever, but our judicial system as a whole use to work, it had problems but overall it worked. Now days you can hardly recognize it anymore.
I've said before and I'll say again that it almost seems like the dims are reckless with classified info deliberately so our foes can get their hands on it. We know Obama wants to see America brought down a few pegs because he said so repeatedly (albeit in different terms).
Not a conspiracy IMO.
Just lowlife people in elected office with no concept of the meaning ... duty, honor, country.
The DOJ is granting permission to Nunes & all members of the HPSIC + Senate Intel Committee to view the FISA applications and renewals 'in camera' rather than providing copies. Letter embedded in the tweet above.
I believe it means in a SCIF unit = no cell phones or cameras or copying machines/mechanisms.
"In camera" means in private. That could be a judge's chambers off the record or in this case, the FBI or DOJ SCIF. Details will be forthcoming, apparently. Might be even in the presiding FISC judge's chambers.
Story developing. But someone had a fire lit under them...or things are just about in place.......???
TCTH comments on the permission to review the FISA warrant application. Nothing new here, but he again raises the issue that the application in possession of the DOJ may not be identical to the one in the FISA Court, and the latter is the application that Goodlatte has requested and which issue remains unresolved.
TCTH comments on the permission to review the FISA warrant application. Nothing new here, but he again raises the issue that the application in possession of the DOJ may not be identical to the one in the FISA Court, and the latter is the application that Goodlatte has requested and which issue remains unresolved.
Hence my caveat that "in camera" might be FISC judge's chambers. Only the FISA court has the records of what was filed and presented to them.
So they're not worried about Schiff leaking all over the place?
Likely a gag order will be in place. And in an ironic twist, Schiff and the rest will be surveilled to enforce it. And yes, a federal judge can do that on a national security matter, if defined in duration and conditions. Else the Espionage Act can be employed against those in violation.
Might be a bluff, might not. But since violations to the Espionage Act include death or life imprisonment, it's one helluva bluff with teeth.
TCTH comments on the permission to review the FISA warrant application. Nothing new here, but he again raises the issue that the application in possession of the DOJ may not be identical to the one in the FISA Court, and the latter is the application that Goodlatte has requested and which issue remains unresolved.
Hence my caveat that "in camera" might be FISC judge's chambers. Only the FISA court has the records of what was filed and presented to them.
The DOJ has a copy of the application they presented to the FISA Court, and this is the copy which Gowdy & a few others have seen; from this copy, the Nunes & Schiff Memos were written. It is not the copy held in the FISA Court. The question is: are the two copies identical? Read the above thread. It discusses this issue, and why Goodlatte requested to see the copy in possession of the FISA Court. I believe there is suspicion that someone altered the copy in possession of the DOJ (to cover something up presumably).
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Judge Collyer already declined producing the FISC records until DOJ presented their version, for just that reason. SHE wanted to see if they were identical or altered.
Again, the "in camera" review might occur under her auspices and in conjunction with those stated aims.
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. Judge Collyer already declined producing the FISC records until DOJ presented their version, for just that reason. SHE wanted to see if they were identical or altered.
Again, the "in camera" review might occur under her auspices and in conjunction with those stated aims.
There is someone else who can answer the question as to whether or not there are 2 versions of the FISA warrant application: Priestap. Read the latest from TCTH/The Last Refuge:
He believes that the FISA investigation by the OIG is already completed since the Congress critters will be allowed to see the FISA application as produced by the DOJ/FBI. However, there is a possibility of two different FISA applications, one that the court received and one that the OIG received.
He also believes Priestap has already testified (only senior FBI official still standing).
Glad he's finally catching up with us. Last Refuge pretty much lays it out. Doc if you recall you, me and Dixie Carter had the conversation about Bill Priestap over 100 pages ago, and I said then he will be key on this, when Comey threw him under the bus. We've brought it up several times. And it all is making perfect sense now. Priestap is spoon feeding the OIG/Huber all these players, when Carlin bailed the writing was on the wall.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
TCTH comments on the permission to review the FISA warrant application. Nothing new here, but he again raises the issue that the application in possession of the DOJ may not be identical to the one in the FISA Court, and the latter is the application that Goodlatte has requested and which issue remains unresolved.
Hence my caveat that "in camera" might be FISC judge's chambers. Only the FISA court has the records of what was filed and presented to them.
The DOJ has a copy of the application they presented to the FISA Court, and this is the copy which Gowdy & a few others have seen; from this copy, the Nunes & Schiff Memos were written. It is not the copy held in the FISA Court. The question is: are the two copies identical? Read the above thread. It discusses this issue, and why Goodlatte requested to see the copy in possession of the FISA Court. I believe there is suspicion that someone altered the copy in possession of the DOJ (to cover something up presumably).
This needs to be clarified a little. Gowdy, Ratcliffe, Schiff and Jim Himes saw a heavily redacted version of the FISA application. They made two trips to the SCIF after that and were never granted a look at an unredacted version. And I think this has also to do with the unprecedented position they are taking. ALso if I'm reading the letter correctly, this time it's going to be made available to ALL the members of the HISC, that includes Nunes who was unable to see the original redacted version at the time.
My gut feeling is that these redactions weren't covering up the sensitive things they presented to the Judge, it's covering up what they didn't tell the judge, which in this case could be worse. The redactions will show they mislead the FISA courts by incomplete information rather than maybe flat out false information. Chaffetz was just talking about this on Fox, that the DOJ is redacting information from the oversight committee, as well as members that are also Gof8 members that have the highest clearances, and should be able to see everything period.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Glad he's finally catching up with us. Last Refuge pretty much lays it out. Doc if you recall you, me and Dixie Carter had the conversation about Bill Priestap over 100 pages ago, and I said then he will be key on this, when Comey threw him under the bus. We've brought it up several times. And it all is making perfect sense now. Priestap is spoon feeding the OIG/Huber all these players, when Carlin bailed the writing was on the wall.
When the dust settles, Boente will also be a hero. He was gumming up the works as US attorney EDVA during the Carter Page FISA process in Sept/Oct 2016 (per Strozk/Page texts) ... then he took over DOJ from Sally Yates in Jan '17 (reversing her EO refusal) ... then he took over NSD from Mary McCord in Feb '17 (reversing OIG access to NSD) .... and now he's general counsel to FBI Wray.
Not sure where to post this, but I think it may be a basis for the entire Russia narrative. The investigations were sandbagged on the Clinton foundation for years and they are scared what is coming to light.
Why did the Clinton Foundation send a $37 million grant for the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund in 2010 to a Baltimore post office box when the CBHF told federal tax authorities that its only office that year was in Washington, D.C.?
Quote:
Records available through the FBI vault confirm that the FBI and DOJ attorneys conducted investigations, empaneled grand juries, and issued subpoenas, yet they were unable to bring indictments or gain convictions against the many individuals and entities linked to the Clinton charity, which clearly engaged in a raft of frauds, across state lines, and in numerous nations.
These FBI records, many of which are heavily redacted even now, clearly show that former FBI Director James Comey played "leadership" roles in these epic failures and that Comey's predecessor as FBI chief, Robert Mueller, was personally aware of the course of these ineffective efforts after he assumed his duties in September 2001.
Quote:
Recent years that matter: 2009 forward. The Clinton Foundation filed an amended federal tax return for 2010 on Nov. 16, 2015. The largest single expense declared for 2010 is a grant of more than $37 million to the CBHF at a post office box in Baltimore, Maryland.
This recent within the statute of limitations declaration on page 36 of the amended return is boldly incorrect. Sworn declarations made using the U.S. mails across state lines to New York and Minnesota declared that the only office and mailing address that CBHF had during the year in question was in Washington, D.C. So why was the $37 million sent to a Baltimore post office address? Who retrieved the check from the P.O. box? What happened to the $37 million thereafter?
Not sure where to post this, but I think it may be a basis for the entire Russia narrative. The investigations were sandbagged on the Clinton foundation for years and they are scared what is coming to light.
Why did the Clinton Foundation send a $37 million grant for the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund in 2010 to a Baltimore post office box when the CBHF told federal tax authorities that its only office that year was in Washington, D.C.?
Quote:
Records available through the FBI vault confirm that the FBI and DOJ attorneys conducted investigations, empaneled grand juries, and issued subpoenas, yet they were unable to bring indictments or gain convictions against the many individuals and entities linked to the Clinton charity, which clearly engaged in a raft of frauds, across state lines, and in numerous nations.
These FBI records, many of which are heavily redacted even now, clearly show that former FBI Director James Comey played "leadership" roles in these epic failures and that Comey's predecessor as FBI chief, Robert Mueller, was personally aware of the course of these ineffective efforts after he assumed his duties in September 2001.
Quote:
Recent years that matter: 2009 forward. The Clinton Foundation filed an amended federal tax return for 2010 on Nov. 16, 2015. The largest single expense declared for 2010 is a grant of more than $37 million to the CBHF at a post office box in Baltimore, Maryland.
This recent within the statute of limitations declaration on page 36 of the amended return is boldly incorrect. Sworn declarations made using the U.S. mails across state lines to New York and Minnesota declared that the only office and mailing address that CBHF had during the year in question was in Washington, D.C. So why was the $37 million sent to a Baltimore post office address? Who retrieved the check from the P.O. box? What happened to the $37 million thereafter?
What did the Clintons know and when did they know it?
The Clinton's and their cohorts should be the subjects of a RICO prosecution.
It's right there for the taking, pun intended. Part of me, the vengeful b**** part, was hoping Sessions' announcement about civil asset forfeiture signaled a renewed interest in using RICO to bankrupt the Clinton Crime Family.
Part of me, the vengeful b**** part, was hoping Sessions' announcement about civil asset forfeiture signaled a renewed interest in using RICO to bankrupt the Clinton Crime Family.
Absolutely, but when it comes to schadenfreude revenge ... I want a pic of Brennan in handcuffs for my screensaver.
Part of me, the vengeful b**** part, was hoping Sessions' announcement about civil asset forfeiture signaled a renewed interest in using RICO to bankrupt the Clinton Crime Family.
Absolutely, but when it comes to schadenfreude revenge ... I want a pic of Brennan in handcuffs for my screensaver.
That, my friend, will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
