All roads lead back to Clinton.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,274,972 Views |
49226 Replies |
Last: 5 days ago by nortex97
That's basically the convoluted case Clapper was trying to make. It's a lie, of course.
Clapper should get the death penalty for his role in a coup attempt.
Clapper should get the death penalty for his role in a coup attempt.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
48,903
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They're down to Homer Simpson logic:
If the FBI used an informant, it wasn't to go after Trump. It was to protect him.
What the president doesn't get about counterintelligence.
By Asha Rangappa
Asha Rangappa is a senior lecturer at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University and a former FBI agent.
President Trump and his allies are outraged at reports that the FBI used an "informant" to spy on Trump's 2016 campaign. "Really bad stuff!" the president tweeted early Friday. Supporters of the White House claim the FBI's reported tactics were illegal. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has even subpoenaed the Justice Department for information on who the informant might have been; department and FBI officials say public disclosures of this kind could put sources in danger.
But Trump and his backers are wrong about what it means that the FBI reportedly was using a confidential source to gather information early in its investigation of possible campaign ties to Russia. The investigation started out as a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal one. And relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously perhaps too cautiously to protect the campaign, not undermine it.
As a former FBI counterintelligence agent, I know what Trump apparently does not: Counterintelligence investigations have a different purpose than their criminal counterparts. Rather than trying to find evidence of a crime, the FBI's counterintelligence goal is to identify, monitor and neutralize foreign intelligence activity in the United States. In short, this entails identifying foreign intelligence officers and their network of agents; uncovering their motives and methods; and ultimately rendering their operations ineffective either by clandestinely thwarting them (say, by feeding back misinformation or "flipping" their sources into double agents) or by exposing them.
By early summer 2016, according to the New York Times, the FBI had already identified at least four members of the Trump campaign with significant ties to or contacts with Russian intelligence. The next logical step in a counterintelligence investigation would be to discern what Russia was trying to do with those people. Sending a source to talk to suspected foreign agents such as campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos could illuminate whether these individuals were being developed or even tasked as intelligence assets for Russia. And that could have served to generate even more information: If the U.S. intelligence community had later picked up "chatter" on Russia's end following these interactions, the FBI could have verified that these individuals were, in fact, in communication with Russian operatives.
Understanding that the FBI may have been using an intelligence source not a criminal "informant" also explains the Justice Department's concern about the purported source's safety. To obtain information about Russia's intentions and methods, the FBI would have had to use someone who would not raise red flags if their interactions with campaign officials got back to Russia. So there is a high likelihood that this person is someone already familiar to Russian intelligence, and possibly someone who was already in Russian business or organized crime circles, which all have links back to Russian President Vladimir Putin which means the source would be in potential danger if discovered. The Washington Post reports that the FBI is working to protect the purported source in light of Nunes's request and to "mitigate the damage" if his or her identity is disclosed, which suggests that this individual may be currently providing law enforcement authorities with intelligence and will need to cease if made public.
The real question isn't why the FBI apparently tried to obtain intelligence from within Trump's campaign, though it's why the bureau didn't do so more aggressively and directly.
Using a confidential intelligence source would have made sense if the FBI's long-term strategy was to allow Russia to believe it was operating undetected and to collect intelligence on Russian methods. But an infiltration of a U.S. presidential campaign by a hostile foreign power presented a grave national security threat of the highest order. That should have justified shutting down neutralizing any Russian operation immediately, even if it meant potentially losing long-term collection. One way that the FBI sometimes does this is to overtly approach suspected agents and question them on their activities. Russian intelligence officers might have scurried away from their efforts to target the Trump campaign once it was clear that the FBI was watching.
But this would also have made the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia public and put the campaign under a cloud of suspicion. News that FBI agents had approached Trump campaign officials would have undoubtedly raised questions from the media and the Clinton campaign and since counterintelligence investigations are classified, the Justice Department would not have been able to reveal publicly that the purpose of the investigation was to counter Russia, not target the campaign itself. Precisely because the Trump campaign wasn't under investigation at the time for criminal wrongdoing, the FBI appears to have taken an approach that tried to avoid inviting unwarranted speculation that it was.
Ironically, the FBI's apparent attempt to protect the campaign by investigating Russia's efforts quietly is now being weaponized against it. Accusations that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign rather than spying on foreign spies, which is its job erase the important distinctions between counterintelligence and criminal investigations. It also displays a shocking ignorance of the devastating consequences to our national security if the Justice Department hands over the information that Nunes is demanding: "Burning" the FBI's purported source and exposing how it obtained intelligence against Russia's efforts only helps Russia cover its tracks, change tactics and improve its future operations against the United States.
The Trump administration's assault against the FBI's efforts to assess a national security threat posed by suspected foreign agents only raises more questions about what went on in 2016. Trump has repeatedly insisted that he is innocent of colluding with Russia and had no idea about his campaign staff's Russia contacts. So he should be glad to know that the FBI appears to have been trying to thwart a hostile country's efforts to infiltrate his campaign. That he and his allies in Congress do not even acknowledge that these individuals posed a national security threat and instead attack the FBI for apparently doing its job suggests that they would have been happy for whatever Russia was doing in 2016 to continue unimpeded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/if-the-fbi-used-an-informant-it-wasnt-to-go-after-trump-it-was-to-protect-him/?utm_term=.0480b2fa184a
What the president doesn't get about counterintelligence.
By Asha Rangappa
Asha Rangappa is a senior lecturer at the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University and a former FBI agent.
President Trump and his allies are outraged at reports that the FBI used an "informant" to spy on Trump's 2016 campaign. "Really bad stuff!" the president tweeted early Friday. Supporters of the White House claim the FBI's reported tactics were illegal. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has even subpoenaed the Justice Department for information on who the informant might have been; department and FBI officials say public disclosures of this kind could put sources in danger.
But Trump and his backers are wrong about what it means that the FBI reportedly was using a confidential source to gather information early in its investigation of possible campaign ties to Russia. The investigation started out as a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal one. And relying on a covert source rather than a more intrusive method of gathering information suggests that the FBI may have been acting cautiously perhaps too cautiously to protect the campaign, not undermine it.
As a former FBI counterintelligence agent, I know what Trump apparently does not: Counterintelligence investigations have a different purpose than their criminal counterparts. Rather than trying to find evidence of a crime, the FBI's counterintelligence goal is to identify, monitor and neutralize foreign intelligence activity in the United States. In short, this entails identifying foreign intelligence officers and their network of agents; uncovering their motives and methods; and ultimately rendering their operations ineffective either by clandestinely thwarting them (say, by feeding back misinformation or "flipping" their sources into double agents) or by exposing them.
By early summer 2016, according to the New York Times, the FBI had already identified at least four members of the Trump campaign with significant ties to or contacts with Russian intelligence. The next logical step in a counterintelligence investigation would be to discern what Russia was trying to do with those people. Sending a source to talk to suspected foreign agents such as campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos could illuminate whether these individuals were being developed or even tasked as intelligence assets for Russia. And that could have served to generate even more information: If the U.S. intelligence community had later picked up "chatter" on Russia's end following these interactions, the FBI could have verified that these individuals were, in fact, in communication with Russian operatives.
Understanding that the FBI may have been using an intelligence source not a criminal "informant" also explains the Justice Department's concern about the purported source's safety. To obtain information about Russia's intentions and methods, the FBI would have had to use someone who would not raise red flags if their interactions with campaign officials got back to Russia. So there is a high likelihood that this person is someone already familiar to Russian intelligence, and possibly someone who was already in Russian business or organized crime circles, which all have links back to Russian President Vladimir Putin which means the source would be in potential danger if discovered. The Washington Post reports that the FBI is working to protect the purported source in light of Nunes's request and to "mitigate the damage" if his or her identity is disclosed, which suggests that this individual may be currently providing law enforcement authorities with intelligence and will need to cease if made public.
The real question isn't why the FBI apparently tried to obtain intelligence from within Trump's campaign, though it's why the bureau didn't do so more aggressively and directly.
Using a confidential intelligence source would have made sense if the FBI's long-term strategy was to allow Russia to believe it was operating undetected and to collect intelligence on Russian methods. But an infiltration of a U.S. presidential campaign by a hostile foreign power presented a grave national security threat of the highest order. That should have justified shutting down neutralizing any Russian operation immediately, even if it meant potentially losing long-term collection. One way that the FBI sometimes does this is to overtly approach suspected agents and question them on their activities. Russian intelligence officers might have scurried away from their efforts to target the Trump campaign once it was clear that the FBI was watching.
But this would also have made the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia public and put the campaign under a cloud of suspicion. News that FBI agents had approached Trump campaign officials would have undoubtedly raised questions from the media and the Clinton campaign and since counterintelligence investigations are classified, the Justice Department would not have been able to reveal publicly that the purpose of the investigation was to counter Russia, not target the campaign itself. Precisely because the Trump campaign wasn't under investigation at the time for criminal wrongdoing, the FBI appears to have taken an approach that tried to avoid inviting unwarranted speculation that it was.
Ironically, the FBI's apparent attempt to protect the campaign by investigating Russia's efforts quietly is now being weaponized against it. Accusations that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign rather than spying on foreign spies, which is its job erase the important distinctions between counterintelligence and criminal investigations. It also displays a shocking ignorance of the devastating consequences to our national security if the Justice Department hands over the information that Nunes is demanding: "Burning" the FBI's purported source and exposing how it obtained intelligence against Russia's efforts only helps Russia cover its tracks, change tactics and improve its future operations against the United States.
The Trump administration's assault against the FBI's efforts to assess a national security threat posed by suspected foreign agents only raises more questions about what went on in 2016. Trump has repeatedly insisted that he is innocent of colluding with Russia and had no idea about his campaign staff's Russia contacts. So he should be glad to know that the FBI appears to have been trying to thwart a hostile country's efforts to infiltrate his campaign. That he and his allies in Congress do not even acknowledge that these individuals posed a national security threat and instead attack the FBI for apparently doing its job suggests that they would have been happy for whatever Russia was doing in 2016 to continue unimpeded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/18/if-the-fbi-used-an-informant-it-wasnt-to-go-after-trump-it-was-to-protect-him/?utm_term=.0480b2fa184a
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
They are all getting scared because this is their new talking point. I've heard it all day on the shows. They're trying to shape public perception as fast as they can before the dominoes start falling.
I've been in the pasture most of the afternoon and haven't seen any of the shows, it's really not surprising this is their new talking point. It's amazing how they get all on the same page lock step like clockwork
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Mueller was appointed to protect the Presidency!
Well the dems all stick together and the media protects them, while the republicans flounder around bumping into walls. If something makes it to the courts, we better pray for a favorable venue and a conservative judge.
Put everything in Judge Ellis' CourtRockdoc said:
Well the dems all stick together and the media protects them, while the republicans flounder around bumping into walls. If something makes it to the courts, we better pray for a favorable venue and a conservative judge.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
And I robbed a bank to protect the money from being stolen.
some kind of sick joke...spying to protect Trump campaign all the way to PDB.
So if they spied to protect him either the current investigation is a waste of time at best or they truly suck at their jobs.
if you know your history something similar happened before.
Ben Gates had to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it from being stolen
Ben Gates had to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it from being stolen
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/18/president-trump-questions-fbi-and-doj-campaign-surveillance-and-spy-operations-carter-page-and-george-papadopoulos/
Quote:
...In 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of New York, announced an indictment against a Russian Operative Evgeny Buryakov. LINK HERE In March of 2016 Buryakov pleaded GUILTY: Carter Page was an FBI cooperating asset in 2013, and remained the primary FBI witness through May of 2016 throughout the duration of the Buryakov case.
If Carter Page was an FBI asset and witness, responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013, and remained so throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how the **** it is possible that on October 21st, 2016, Carter Page is put under a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?
Conclusion: He wasn't.
The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division, knew he wasn't a Russian agent. The DOJ-NSD and FBI flat-out LIED to the FISA court.
Now, go back to the March 2016 DOJ Press Release of the guilty pleading for Evgeny Buryakov, announced from the New York office:Because "FISA Title-I" surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants.Quote:
"Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced"
One of the four people authorized to make such a filing is the Asst. Attorney General who is head of the National Security Division of the DOJ. At the time that person was John P Carlin. The same John P Carlin who worked with the FBI counterintelligence unit, conscripted Carter Page as an FBI asset/witness, gained a guilty plea, then turned around six months later accuses their star witness of being a Russian Spy?
Think about this?
Why? Likely because the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) and FBI Counterintelligence needed to find a legal way to spy on the Trump campaign. The 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former FBI employee Carter Page became that legal way. ["The Insurance Policy"]
In October of 2016, at approximately the same time the DOJ was making the FISA Court filing against Page, and successfully gaining the surveillance warrant, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin resigned as head of the DOJ-NSD. SEE HERE Did Carlin resign in protest? or, did Carlin resign knowing he too had served a larger purpose?...
This is unbelievable! John Carlin was involved in the Buryakov spy case and knew that Carter Page was a cooperating FBI asset through May 2016, yet Carlin filed the FISA warrant application against Page in October 2016, just 5 months later. Carlin knew Page wasn't a Russian agent. Carlin had announced his resignation in September and left the NSD the end of October, just days after filing the warrant application. BTW, prior to becoming the head of the FBI's NSD, he was Mueller's Chief of Staff.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/997600229330305025.html
Oh my! Grassley is really after Rosenstein. He wrote him another letter. It's included and discussed in the above thread reader. He too is concerned about Rosenstein granting authority to Mueller that is contrary to the regulations and is demanding to see the unreacted memo Rosenstein sent to Mueller in August 2017. Fireworks expected.
Was Page a willing participant?
Is it possible Carter Page was the FBI plant?drcrinum said:
John Carlin was involved in the Buryakov spy case and knew that Carter Page was a cooperating FBI asset through May 2016, yet Carlin filed the FISA warrant application against Page in October 2016, just 5 months later. Carlin knew Page wasn't a Russian agent.
No, it was Stefan Halper...who was performing 'source validation' on Page & Papdopoulos.benchmark said:Is it possible Carter Page was the FBI plant?drcrinum said:
John Carlin was involved in the Buryakov spy case and knew that Carter Page was a cooperating FBI asset through May 2016, yet Carlin filed the FISA warrant application against Page in October 2016, just 5 months later. Carlin knew Page wasn't a Russian agent.
Holy Crap!!!!!
Grassley is not known for throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks! He has back-up for those questions. And likely already knows the answers.
Grassley is not known for throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks! He has back-up for those questions. And likely already knows the answers.
Can't imagine they included this in that FISA application. Someone needs to go to jail over that application. Wonder how they justified extending it 3 times.
They had to het the FISA Title 1 to cover the fact that they had been spying without a warrant using contractors and the GCHQ. When Mike rogers cut off their access they had to get an actual warrant to open up those channels again, and to cover their tracks for spying the past year without a warrant. They didn't know what all Mike Rogers knew, and they couldn't take a chance if he was wise to them or at least suspected it, so they doctored up a FiSA app and were turned down three times in July, so they added in the GPS dossier and Contreras signed off on it, and they two hopped retroactively and thought they had covered their asses. But Mike Rogers knew far more than he was letting on and as soon as Trump won, he went to Trump tower and told him to pack up and move your transition team while they debugged Trump Tower.drcrinum said:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/18/president-trump-questions-fbi-and-doj-campaign-surveillance-and-spy-operations-carter-page-and-george-papadopoulos/Quote:
...n 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of New York, announced an indictment against a Russian Operative Evgeny Buryakov. LINK HERE In March of 2016 Buryakov pleaded GUILTY: Carter Page was an FBI cooperating asset in 2013, and remained the primary FBI witness through May of 2016 throughout the duration of the Buryakov case.
If Carter Page was an FBI asset and witness, responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013, and remained so throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how the **** it is possible that on October 21st, 2016, Carter Page is put under a FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?
Conclusion: He wasn't.
The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division, knew he wasn't a Russian agent. The DOJ-NSD and FBI flat-out LIED to the FISA court.
Now, go back to the March 2016 DOJ Press Release of the guilty pleading for Evgeny Buryakov, announced from the New York office:Because "FISA Title-I" surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants.Quote:
"Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced"
One of the four people authorized to make such a filing is the Asst. Attorney General who is head of the National Security Division of the DOJ. At the time that person was John P Carlin. The same John P Carlin who worked with the FBI counterintelligence unit, conscripted Carter Page as an FBI asset/witness, gained a guilty plea, then turned around six months later accuses their star witness of being a Russian Spy?
Think about this?
Why? Likely because the DOJ-National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) and FBI Counterintelligence needed to find a legal way to spy on the Trump campaign. The 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former FBI employee Carter Page became that legal way. ["The Insurance Policy"]
In October of 2016, at approximately the same time the DOJ was making the FISA Court filing against Page, and successfully gaining the surveillance warrant, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin resigned as head of the DOJ-NSD. SEE HERE Did Carlin resign in protest? or, did Carlin resign knowing he too had served a larger purpose?...
This is unbelievable! John Carlin was involved in the Buryakov spy case and knew that Carter Page was a cooperating FBI asset through May 2016, yet Carlin filed the FISA warrant application against Page in October 2016, just 5 months later. Carlin knew Page wasn't a Russian agent. Carlin had announced his resignation in September and left the NSD the end of October, just days after filing the warrant application. BTW, prior to becoming the head of the FBI's NSD, he was Mueller's Chief of Staff.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
The noose is tightening, alright. Hint: It isn't on Trump.
SO VERY impressed with Grassley, he's setting a trap and daring them to lie to him.
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Have they been responsive to Grassley's other letters?
WowRoscoePColtrane said:
SO VERY impressed with Grassley, he's setting a trap and daring them to lie to him.
Wowzer indeed! No question Rosenstein skirted Section 600.1 for Mueller's appointment ... shocked it took Grassley this long to challenge. This thread discussed the 600.1 conflict weeks ago.drcrinum said:
Oh my! Grassley is really after Rosenstein. He wrote him another letter. It's included and discussed in the above thread reader. He too is concerned about Rosenstein granting authority to Mueller that is contrary to the regulations and is demanding to see the unreacted memo Rosenstein sent to Mueller in August 2017. Fireworks expected.
He's seen the unredacted Scope now so he's pouncing, as long as they had most of the scoped blacked out he didn't want to spring it on them without being certain of what he was doing.benchmark said:Wowzer indeed! No question Rosenstein skirted Section 600.1 for Mueller's appointment ... shocked it took Grassley this long to challenge. This thread discussed the 600.1 conflict weeks ago.drcrinum said:
Oh my! Grassley is really after Rosenstein. He wrote him another letter. It's included and discussed in the above thread reader. He too is concerned about Rosenstein granting authority to Mueller that is contrary to the regulations and is demanding to see the unreacted memo Rosenstein sent to Mueller in August 2017. Fireworks expected.
Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to - Jerome P. Facher
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Cohen's attorney is going on offense with Avenatti
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4469576/Cohen-v-USA-Cohen-Opposition-to-Avenatti.pdf
Avenatti's response
And Avenatti is in front of any camera that will have him saying the Cohen lawyers' filing is "Baseless and inaccurate."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4469576/Cohen-v-USA-Cohen-Opposition-to-Avenatti.pdf
Avenatti's response
And Avenatti is in front of any camera that will have him saying the Cohen lawyers' filing is "Baseless and inaccurate."
Never take a hostage you aren't willing to shoot,
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
Remember, America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Code 7 10-42
how long does he have to respond?
Reposted from our May 6 discussion.
benchmark said:
Interesting legal interpretation on Mueller's appointment (albeit from a former Obama DOJ hack):
Mueller Wasn't Appointed Pursuant to the DOJ Regs, Marty Lebermann, Jan 4, 2018Quote:
As I explained here back in August, Rosenstein almost certainly did not appoint Mueller pursuant to section 600.4 or pursuant to the Special Counsel regulations at all. In his appointment order, Rosenstein did not say that he was appointing Mueller pursuant to, or "under," the regulations. Nor did he cite the provision of the regulations, Section 600.1, that governs the appointment of a Special Counsel from outside the Department. Instead, he wrote that he was acting "by virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice." (In particular, section 515 provides that "any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct.")
That is to say, Rosenstein relied only upon statutory, not regulatory, authorities in making his appointment of Mueller - the same authorities that gave the Attorney General the authority "to appoint subordinate officers" from outside DOJ (namely, Special Counsels Cox and Jaworski) "to assist him in the discharge of his duties" involving the Watergate investigations and prosecutions. U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694. [Clarification: To be sure, in 1973 the Attorney General did so by promulgating a "regulation" in the Federal Register specifically concerning the Watergate investigation, whereas Rosenstein acted by promulgating a letter. That difference in form is of no moment, however (except perhaps insofar as it effects what the AG would have to do to rescind the previous appointment): The important point is that each of the three actionsthe 1973 creation of the Watergate-related Special Counsel, the 1999 general, "framework" DOJ Special Counsel regs, and the 2017 creation of the Russia/Trump Campaign Special Counselwere directly authorized by the same set of statutes, especially section 515.]
Featured Stories
See All
16:21
1d ago
16k
2026 North Forney cornerback Ryan Gilbert commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
5:12
4d ago
3.5k
In-Home Visit: A&M's 2026 momentum keeps rolling as Gilbert commits
by TexAgs Recruiting
Way-too-early expectations for Texas A&M basketball in 2024-25
by David Sandhop
Longhorns join Southeastern Conference with grandiose expectations
by Olin Buchanan