"These Were The People Investigating Hillary": Trump Escalates War With FBI

It has been a scorched earth weekend in the PR war between Donald Trump and the FBI.

In the aftermath of the report that the FBI’s top lawyer - and suspected FBI leaker - James Baker, had been reassigned, and at the same time as news hit that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was set to retire as a result of the "Trump Insurance Policy" debacle (but only once he becomes eligible for pension benefits), Trump lashed out at top FBI officials on Saturday and Sunday, his latest in a stream of criticism aimed at an agency that has seen a sudden spike in high profile departures after Peter Strzok"s publicly disclosed text message revealed a stunning climate of extreme anti-Trump bias at the FBI - including one still to be determined "Trump Insurance Policy" - just as Trump had suggested all along. 

Trump swiped at multiple agency officials in a string of tweets Saturday afternoon, suggesting that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may have been compromised by political donations and ripping former FBI Director James Comey as a leaker.

"How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?" Trump tweeted.

How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

The tweet was followed moments later by a comment on reports that McCabe is looking to retire from the bureau in the coming months as reported yesterday, in the aftermath of the "Trump Insurance Policy" fiasco. Trump noted that McCabe may seek retirement in March, when he would receive his full pension benefits. Trump wrote that the deputy bureau chief was "racing the clock to retire with full benefits," adding, "90 days to go?!!!"

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

Rounding off the Saturday tweetstorm was a reference to reports that James Baker, the FBI"s top lawyer, had been reassigned. Trump reacted to that development with a simple "Wow" on Twitter, though news of Baker"s reassignment had surfaced days earlier.

Wow, “FBI lawyer James Baker reassigned,” according to @FoxNews.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2017

The tweets Saturday from Trump, who has repeatedly jabbed at McCabe by citing his wife"s ties to prominent Democrats, came after the FBI deputy testified for many hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week, responding to questions from lawmakers on three congressional panels probing the Trump campaign"s ties to Russia and the bureau"s work. As we reported, Congressional investigators said that McCabe dodged questions on the "Trump-Russia" dossier, and his testimony "contained numerous conflicts with the testimony of previous witnesses" so much that the House Intelligence Committee is planning to issue new subpoenas next week to Justice Department and FBI Personnel.

“It’s hard to know who’s telling us the truth,” said one House investigator after McCabe’s questioning - which was reportedly spearheaded by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).  When asked about funding for the "Trump dossier", McCabe claimed he could not recall whether or not the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the report - despite the alleged existence of documents which McCabe signed establishing his knowledge of its financing and provenance.  Curiously, ahead of McCabe"s Thursday appearance in front of the House Judiciary Committee for a "transcribed interview," the DOJ announced that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe "will not be in a position to discuss matters that are within the scope of the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III."

On Sunday, Trump"s feud with the FBI resumed, when the president used a tweet to quote Fox, stating that that FBI’s Andrew McCabe, “in addition to his wife getting all of this money from M (Clinton Puppet), he was using, allegedly, his FBI Official Email Account to promote her campaign. You obviously cannot do this. These were the people who were investigating Hillary Clinton.”

.@FoxNews-FBI’s Andrew McCabe, “in addition to his wife getting all of this money from M (Clinton Puppet), he was using, allegedly, his FBI Official Email Account to promote her campaign. You obviously cannot do this. These were the people who were investigating Hillary Clinton.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2017

To be sure, Democrats argue that the Republican criticisms of McCabe and the FBI are an effort to undermine Mueller as his investigation ramps up, and to give Trump cover should he try to remove Mueller, a step the White House insists is not on the table. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, responded to Trump"s criticisms Saturday afternoon. "FBI would set a dangerous precedent if it forced out dedicated career public servants in capitulation to Trump and (White House) pressure," Schiff tweeted. "President has already removed one top FBI leader — Comey — over Russia; McCabe would be another."

None other than James Comey, now in active marketing mode for his upcoming book, tweeted that "Sadly, we are now at a point in our political life when anyone can be attacked for partisan gain. James Baker, who is stepping down as FBI General Counsel, served our country incredibly well for 25 years & deserves better. He is what we should all want our public servants to be" to which some twitter commentators had a sarcastic response...

If by that you mean

Leaking classified information for political gain

No wonder @realDonaldTrump sacked your unethical incompetent a$$ https://t.co/x6zAxzbes7

— Jim Hanson (@Uncle_Jimbo) December 24, 2017

As a reminder, what really happened according to the Washington Post, Baker, the FBI"s general counsel, communicated with Mother Jones reporter David Corn in the weeks leading up to the November 2016 election. Corn was then the first to report the existence of the Trump dossier on Oct. 31.

Meanwhile, some Republicans have called for McCabe"s ouster, accusing him of political bias, particularly over the fact that his wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to her 2015 Virginia state Senate campaign from a super PAC led by a Clinton ally. At the same time, Benjamin Wittes, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and friend of Comey, cautioned in a tweet on Saturday that the deputy director"s exit from the FBI may not be part of any kind of larger "purge" at the bureau. Then again, if more evidence of FBI collusion against Trump emerges, the "purge" - or the draining of the FBI/DOJ swamp as some have dubbed it - may just be getting started.

Further stoking the PR war between Trump and the FBI, a number of Republican lawmakers have questioned the FBI"s objectivity and fairness in recent months, particularly regarding McCabe"s work at the agency, while recent revelations that FBI Peter Strzok - who was in charge of the FBI"s probe into Hillary"s email server and was leading the investigation into Trump"s Russian collusion - had sent text messages critical of Trump during the presidential race, only served to undescore speculation that the FBI may have been the critical cog in the "deep state"s" plan to avoid a Trump presidency.

Trump Attorney Quashes Rumors Of Impending Mueller Firing

An Attorney for President Trump has vehemently denied rumors that special counsel Robert Mueller will be fired over revelations of politically motivated malfeasance by the FBI towards Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump, including disturbing text messages which were sent between top FBI investigators implying the Trump-Russia investigation may have been launched as an "insurance" policy in the event Trump won the 2016 election. Furthermore, GOP lawmakers have asserted that FBI top brass relied on a salacious and unverified "dossier" to launch the Trump-Russia investigation. Also noted by critics is the fact that Robert Mueller"s "right hand man," Aaron Zebley represented Clinton IT staffer Justin Cooper - a Bill Clinton aide who "jerry-rigged" Hillary Clinton"s "private, illegal" server in her Chappaqua home. 

Peter Strzok, Robert Mueller, Ty Cobb

Despite all of that, Trump attorney Ty Cobb told Politico, "As the White House has repeatedly and emphatically said for months, there is no consideration at the White House of terminating the special counsel.” 

Earlier in the day we reported that Trump transition team attorney Kory Langhofer sent a seven-page complaint to House and Senate oversight committees investigating the 2016 election to lodge a complaint that the special counsel improperly obtained "many tens of thousands" of emails from the Trump transition team from the General Services Administration - the government agency responsible for setting up and administering the transition email system which uses a "ptt.gov" address. Kanghofer says these emails were obtained through "unlawful conduct," and that the Trump team had been segregating emails with "Executive Privilege" in anticipation of giving the rest to Mueller"s team. 

On Friday, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said there was a rumor floating around DC that President Trump will fire Mueller before Christmas, but after congress leaves for winter recess. 

“The rumor on the Hill when I left yesterday was that the president was going to make a significant speech at the end of next week. And on Dec. 22, when we are out of D.C., he was going to fire Robert Mueller," Speier told California"s KQED News.

"We can read between the lines I think," Speier told KQED, adding "I believe this president wants all of this shut down. He wants to shut down these investigations, and he wants to fire special counsel Mueller."

Speier joined Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) over concerns that the House Intelligence Committee"s Russia investigation would be shut down by the end of the year. 

Reps Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA)

Schiff shot off a series of nine tweets explaining why he"s "increasingly worried Republicans will shut down the House Intelligence Committee investigation," pointing to the fact that "Republicans have scheduled no witnesses after next Friday and none in 2017. We have dozens of outstanding witnesses on key aspects of our investigation that they refuse to contact and many document requests they continue to sit on." 

Read the rest by clicking on Schiff"s tweet and scrolling down. 

I’m increasingly worried Republicans will shut down the House Intelligence Committee investigation at the end of the month.

Here’s why:

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) December 15, 2017

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders denied rumors that President Trump was considering firing Mueller in October, stating "There is no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel," adding "I think we should let the process play through before we start looking at that."

Perhaps GOP lawmakers would be more comfortable with Mueller"s special counsel if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would appoint a second special counsel to investigate the FBI? Alas, it looks like that may be nothing more than wishful thinking for the time being. 

Comey Outs Himself As Pseudo-Intellectual Trying To Troll Trump, Attributes Snooty Quote To Wrong Author

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

As we previously reported, James Comey has been quite the chatterbox on Twitter since revealing his new @Comey handle - firing off tweets about nature scenes, bible quotes, social gatherings, and recently quoting himself - proclaiming how "honest" and "strong" the FBI is despite what seem to be daily revelations of the agency"s political bias. He"s quite the intellectual!

“I want the American people to know this truth: The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is, and always will be, independent.”
Me (June 8, 2017) pic.twitter.com/OZ1ZiBrMNL

— James Comey (@Comey) December 3, 2017

Here"s Comey, deep in intellectual thought...

Goodbye Iowa. On the road home. Gotta get back to writing. Will try to tweet in useful ways. pic.twitter.com/DCbu3Yvqt3

— James Comey (@Comey) October 23, 2017

And here"s a picture of a river which Comey tweets along with a quote about - get this - lying:

“If you want truth to go round the world you must hire an express train to pull it; but if you want a lie to go round the world, it will fly; it is light as a feather and a breath will carry it.” Rev. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1855). pic.twitter.com/YZf4q88wyi

— James Comey (@Comey) November 11, 2017

And last week, Comey threw around bible verse Amos 5:24, "But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Kind of ironic for a guy who couldn"t wait for "justice" to roll down before drafting Hillary Clinton"s exoneration letter.

Which brings us to Comey"s latest attempt at depth after President Trump tweeted a video of himself outside of Air Force One with the caption "On my way to Pensacola, Florida. See everyone Soon! #MAGA"

Less than an hour later, Comey tried to roast Trump with a pithy quote about grandstanding for attention - which, ironically, Comey tweeted for attention while promoting his book tour.

“Applause is the spur of noble minds, the end and aim of weak ones.” - Edmund Burke (1730-1797)

— James Comey (@Comey) December 9, 2017

Cute, except Comey attributed the quote to the wrong author! 

This quotation was actually not from Burke, but from Charles Caleb Colton. https://t.co/oj0yq26fE7 https://t.co/Oj0L8UELpW

— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) December 9, 2017

The reactions have been priceless:

Comey works for CNN now?

— Phil (@navydoc201) December 9, 2017

pic.twitter.com/79OlDYFZlE

— Ellis Wyatt (@TradeschoolA) December 9, 2017

Comey being extremely careless with his quotations https://t.co/EpkGSlQI94

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) December 9, 2017

Sad!

h/t Twitchy

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Obama DOJ Didn"t Bother To Interview FBI Informant Before Filing Charges In Uranium One Scandal

Do you ever get the sense that with certain investigations, primarily those targeting conservatives, the FBI has a tendency to dot every "i", cross every "t" and pursue charges at all costs, no matter how minor, but with others (think Hillary"s email scandal) even the most glaring violations of federal law seem to go unpunished?

For example, compare and contrast the Flynn charges versus how the Hillary email investigation was conducted by the Comey-led FBI.  On the one hand, Flynn held perfectly legal conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States AFTER the U.S. presidential election, a common practice for presidential transition teams, yet for some inexplicable reason, probably having something to do with fears of being charged with a bogus "Logan Act" violation in Mueller"s Russian collusion witch hunt, decided to lie about them during interviews with the FBI.  As a result of his lies, Flynn has now plead guilty to two counts of false statements, has been ruined financially by mounting legal bills and could end up serving jail time.

On the other hand, compare that outcome to the Hillary email scandal where there is tangible evidence and first-hand testimony that Hillary and her team knowingly violated a Congressional subpoena by deleting 33,000 emails, habitually destroyed evidence with hammers so it could never be recovered and routinely compromised American national security interests by sending "Top Secret" communications via unsecured channels...something that Comey originally defined at "gross negligence" even though he later changed his language to "extreme carelessness" to assure that Hillary could never be pursued with criminal charges.  So what were the punishments for all those federal crimes?  Well, rather than pursue charges against Hillary and/or various members of her staff the FBI decided to "hand out immunity deals like candy."

Now, in just the latest bit of evidence that the Justice department has been politically compromised, we learn from John Solomon of The Hill that the DOJ didn"t even bother to interview a key FBI informant before filing criminal charges in the Uranium One scandal back in 2014.

While he was Maryland’s chief federal prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office failed to interview the undercover informant in the FBI’s Russian nuclear bribery case before it filed criminal charges in the case in 2014, officials told The Hill.

 

And the prosecutors did not let a grand jury hear from the paid informant before it handed up an indictment portraying him as a “victim” of the Russian corruption scheme or fully review his extensive trove of documents until months later, the officials confirmed.

 

The decisions backfired after prosecutors conducted more extensive debriefings of William Campbell in 2015, learning much more about the extent of his undercover activities and the transactions he engaged in while under the FBI’s direction, the officials said.

 

The debriefings forced prosecutors to recast their entire criminal case against former Russian uranium industry executive Vadim Mikerinn — removing the informant as a star witness and main victim for the prosecution, the officials added.

Inexplicably, even though William Campbell was tapped by the FBI to serve as an undercover informant as far back as 2006, federal prosecutors didn"t bother to fully interview him until months after charges had already been filed.  Moreover, the information they learned from Campbell was apparently so substantial that it resulted in prosecutors "changing the theory of the case."

Officials told The Hill that prosecutors working for Rosenstein first interviewed Campbell, the informant, after they had already filed a sealed criminal complaint against Mikerin in July 2014.

 

Campbell got one debriefing after the criminal charges were filed, but was never brought before the grand jury that indicted the Russian figure in November 2014 even though the informer was portrayed as “Victim One” in that indictment, the officials confirmed

 

When prosecutors finally interviewed Campbell more extensively in early 2015 and reviewed all of the records he had gathered for the FBI, they learned new information about the sequence of transactions he conducted while under the FBI’s supervision, as well as the extensive nature of his counterintelligence work for the U.S. government that went far beyond the Mikerin case and dated to at least 2006, the officials said.

 

“Based on what was learned, we decided to change the theory of the case. … A plea deal became our goal so we wouldn’t have to litigate or make an issue of some of the stuff he had done for [counterintelligence] purposes,” a source directly familiar with the case said.

Of course, as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz notes, this type of "negligence" in a case is almost unprecedented.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said it was troubling that prosecutors would ever bring a case without talking first to a person they portrayed in court as a victim, especially when that person was an FBI informant available to them.

 

“I’ve never heard of such a case unless the victim is dead. I’ve never heard of prosecutors making a major case and not talking to the victim before you made it, especially when he was available to them through the FBI,” Dershowitz said.

 

“It is negligence, and I’m sure there will be internal issues with the Justice Department and U.S. attorney for making such an obvious mistake,” he said.

Meanwhile, and to our complete shock mind you, now that various Congressional committees have taken an interest in hearing Campbell"s tales, the DOJ has suddenly recalled that he was a raging alcoholic whose testimony couldn"t be trusted...which does make you wonder why the FBI allowed him to work undercover for all those years and paid him $51,000 for his services???

Congress is now investigating the entire Russian nuclear bribery case after The Hill disclosed Campbell’s work, with multiple committees demanding to know whether the FBI told the Obama administration about Mikerin’s criminality before the administration made favorable decisions that rewarded Rosatom with billions of dollars in new American nuclear fuel contracts.

 

Justice officials began briefing congressional officials this week, starting with the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the briefings end, congressional investigators plan to interview Campbell.

 

After Campbell’s name and work surfaced, anonymous allegations surfaced in stories by Yahoo and Reuters suggesting the Justice Department had grave reservations about Campbell’s credibility, in part because he had three misdemeanor alcohol arrests.

Anyone who answered in the negative to the question at the beginning of this post are now kindly invited to reconsider...what a farce...

Trump Twitter Meltdown: President Goes To War With FBI, Urges Suing ABC For "Bad Reporting"

This weekend may set a new record for number of Trump tweets and retweets. Starting with his congratulations on the Senate"s passage of Tax Reform, Trump has interacted no less than 17 times with his social platform, although things seemed to accelerate following his Saturday noon tweet in which Trump responded to Flynn"s plea agreement in which the president said that "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!"

I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2017

The odd wording of that tweet - that he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI at the time of his firing - prompted many to speculate that it was prima facie admission of obstruction and interference - something Mueller is tasked with proving - and led to the unprecedented comment by Trump"s personal lawyer, John Dowd, who said he drafted the president"s Saturday morning. Dowd told ABC News he wrote those words and had done so in a "sloppy" manner. A second source familiar with the matter corroborated his account.

The reason for Dowd"s comment is that Trump"s tweet seemed to "add a potentially explosive new dimension" to the ongoing investigation, because as ABC notes, if what Trump, or his lawyer, said is true, why then would Trump ask the FBI director to go easy on Flynn, as former FBI Director James Comey later testified? The message set off renewed talk of potential evidence of obstruction of justice.

As ABC further adds this morning,  Dowd"s acknowledgment of involvement in the tweet means it is not clear whether the president did in fact know Flynn had lied to the FBI at the time of firing him -- though one source familiar with the president’s thinking said Trump did not know. Administration officials have declined to comment on that matter, as well.

The unusual clarification by Dowd –-revealing that someone other than Trump himself had authored a tweet from his official account - could also be an attempt to tamp down on potential legal exposure from the message.

 

The president did not respond to shouted questions Saturday evening about Flynn’s firing as he returned home from campaign fundraisers in New York City.

While we expect Trump"s Saturday tweet to once again shape the news cycle for the next several days, at least until the inevitable and "distracting" war with North Korea finally begins, even as the debate rages what tweets does Trump personally publish and which are drafted by his lawyers, in what appears to have been an attempt to distract from the "confession" fallout, Trump went on a veritable twitter rampage on Saturday night, which has since continued into Sunday morning.

Late on Saturday, Trump launched a new attack on Hillary and the Justice Department over Hillary"s mishandling of emails, writing, "So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now famous FBI holiday “interrogation” with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times...and nothing happens to her? Rigged system, or just a double standard?" He then continued: "Many people in our Country are asking what the “Justice” Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and “acid washed” 33,000 Emails? No justice!"

So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now famous FBI holiday “interrogation” with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times...and nothing happens to her? Rigged system, or just a double standard?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

Many people in our Country are asking what the “Justice” Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and “acid washed” 33,000 Emails? No justice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

He then proceeded with the previously discussed slam of ABC News" Brian Ross, congratulating the network for "suspending Brian Ross for his horrendously inaccurate and dishonest report on the Russia, Russia, Russia Witch Hunt. More Networks and “papers” should do the same with their Fake News!"

Congratulations to @ABC News for suspending Brian Ross for his horrendously inaccurate and dishonest report on the Russia, Russia, Russia Witch Hunt. More Networks and “papers” should do the same with their Fake News!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

And while that concluded the Saturday night tweetstorm, Trump was back this morning and angrier than ever, when he discovered the story about the "tainted" FBI agent, Peter Strzok, who as we reported yesterday, was said to have been "removed" from the Mueller probe (and who previously was tasked with investigating the Clinton email server), after anti-Trump text messages were discovered in his communications to a fellow FBI officer, with whom he had an extramarital affair.

Trump started by retweeting IBD"s Paul Sperry, who recapped the situation as follows: 

BREAKING: top FBI investigator for Mueller--PETER STRZOK--busted sending political text messages bashing Trump & praising Hillary during the 2016 campaign. STRZOK actually LED the Hillary email probe & recommended clearing her; then was tapped to SUPERVISE the Trump Russia probe!

 

Wray needs to clean house. Now we know the politicization even worse than McCabe"s ties to McAuliffe/Clinton. It also infected his top investigator PETER STRZOK, who sent texts bashing Trump & praising Hillary during campaign. Strzok led Hillary probe & supervised Trump probe!

In response, Trump then lashed out at the FBI in general, and Comey in particular, with a barrage of of tweets, the most comprehensive of which was "Report: “ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE”  Now it all starts to make sense!"

Report: “ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE” Now it all starts to make sense!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

preceded by "Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI “agent’s role in Clinton probe under review.” Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge."...

Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI “agent’s role in Clinton probe under review.” Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

Ultimately, Trump slammed of both the agency and its former head "After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters - worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness."

After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters - worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

And speaking of Comey, it was before 6 am when Trump, seeming concerned about the implications of the Dowd tweet snafu, tweeted "I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!"

I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

The BBC"s Paul Danager perhaps summarized the ongoing fracture in the realtionship between Trump and the FBI: "Not since Nixon has a US President been this at war with the FBI. It’s destructive for both arms of government."

Not since Nixon has a US President been this at war with the FBI. It’s destructive for both arms of government. https://t.co/Jkz6DeWsw4

— Paul Danahar (@pdanahar) December 3, 2017

It still remains to be seen who will win this war.

Trump wasn"t done, however, and shortly after his last tweet on the FBI, he shifted attention to last week"s "Kate"s Law" ruling in San Francisco, tweeting "Such a total miscarriage of Justice in San Francisco!"...

Such a total miscarriage of Justice in San Francisco! https://t.co/MSIkBCKF3t

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

... before reverting once again to the ABC reporting snafu, urging "People who lost money when the Stock Market went down 350 points based on the False and Dishonest reporting of Brian Ross of @ABC News (he has been suspended), should consider hiring a lawyer and suing ABC for the damages this bad reporting has caused - many millions of dollars!"

People who lost money when the Stock Market went down 350 points based on the False and Dishonest reporting of Brian Ross of @ABC News (he has been suspended), should consider hiring a lawyer and suing ABC for the damages this bad reporting has caused - many millions of dollars!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

And since Gen. Kelly has clearly given up any hope of controlling Trump"s twitter account, we can only expect more, perhaps self-destructive, tweets to come out as Trump"s tweetstorm appears to be nowhere near over.

Trump Heralds GOP "Anger, Unity" As WSJ Warns Dems "The Russian Dossier Dam Is Breaking"

In a series if tweets this morning, President Trump has exposed some of the narratives that much of the mainstream media seems loathed to touch...

Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the  33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more.

 

Instead they look at phony Trump/Russia "collusion," which doesn"t exist.

 

The Dems are using this terrible (and bad for our country) Witch Hunt for evil politics, but the R"s are now fighting back like never before.

 

There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO SOMETHING!

And while Democrats and their mouthpieces continues to try and focus attention on the unverified frivolous claims within the dossier - as opposed to the illegalities of the dossier"s production, collusion, and exhibition - The Wall Street Journal"s Holman Jenkins warns then that the Trump Dossier dam is breaking...

A U.S. political party applied to a hostile power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent.

’Tis the season of tossing out nondisclosure agreements. Victims and employees of Harvey Weinstein clamor to be released from their NDAs so they can talk about his abuse. Perkins Coie, the Washington law firm for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign, showed the way by voluntarily releasing Fusion GPS from its duty to remain mum on Democrats who funded the notorious Trump dossier.

May the example catch on.

Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That’s already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying.

The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid’s “October surprise,” his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier’s allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding “explosive information.”

Mr. Reid knows how the responsible press works. Implausible, scurrilous and unsupported allegations are not reportable, but a government official making public reference to such allegations is reportable.

Mr. Reid, though, failed to mention his party’s role in concocting the allegations, much less that the manner of its doing so left him no reason to suppose the charges were anything but tall tales spun by Russian intelligence officials in response to danglings of Democratic money.

This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role.

Let’s also hear from Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

He claimed on TV to have “circumstantial” and “more than circumstantial” evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.

In the event, what he delivered in a committee hearing was a litany of routine, innocuous business and diplomatic contacts between Trump associates and Russian citizens, interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier.

He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. “research” firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true.

Mr. Schiff, a Harvard Law graduate, will know the phrase is not our coinage. “Reckless disregard” is the standard by which the Supreme Court says, even in a country that bends over backward to protect the press at the expense of public figures, the press can be held liable for defamatory untruths about a public figure.

Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they’d be in a better ethical position now. Let’s hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it.

Finally, let us hear from James Comey.

The Trump dossier was reckless and irresponsible in the extreme, but only consequential after Election Day. It didn’t prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president.

In the new spirit of non-non-disclosure, it’s time for Mr. Comey to tell us about the Russian intelligence scam that may really have changed the election outcome.

In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo.

This led directly to Mr. Comey’s second intervention, reopening the case 11 days before Election Day, a shocking development that appears now to have moved enough votes into Mr. Trump’s column to account for his win.

At the time, the press was all too happy to blame Bill Clinton for his wife’s loss when Mr. Comey, for nonclassified consumption, cited Mr. Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch as the reason for his intervention.

The press is silent now.

The new story satisfies nobody’s agenda, and only makes the FBI look foolish. Mr. Trump is not eager to hear his victory portrayed as an FBI-precipitated accident. Democrats cling to their increasingly washed-out theory of Trump-Russia collusion.

And yet, if Mr. Comey’s antic intervention in response to Russian disinformation inadvertently led to Mr. Trump becoming president, this was the most consequential outcome by far.

*  *  *

President Trump has the final word however, asking (and answering a key question) - All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!

All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2017

Trump"s Storm Is Lashing The Halls Of Corruption

Written by Lord Feverstone of Dystopia, USA

About two months ago, I wrote an article here on Zero Hedge entitled, "Trump Is Slow-Playing His Cards In This Game Of Deep State Poker."

It was met with some understandable skepticism, but in light of recent political developments, it may be worth your second perusal.

My conjecture then was that President Trump was setting up his enemies by utilizing a rope-a-dope strategy; feigning weakness while his administration worked covertly to rid Washington of decades of political corruption.  

At the time, I called it a sting operation. Well, it appears Trump may have had another term in mind.

"The calm before the storm."

Since that article, and since Trump"s seemingly cryptic statement, we have been witness to the following:

• Clinton and Obama friend Harvey Weinstein"s disgraceful fall from his perch atop Hollywood.


• Confirmation that James Comey sought to exonerate Hillary Clinton before even interviewing her.


• Fusion GPS executives invoking the Fifth Amendment, their lawyers fighting, red of tooth and claw, to keep Congressional investigators from combing through Fusion"s bank records.


• A slate of Project Veritas videos embarrassing the legacy media.


• Julian Assange tweeting out another set of hash keys.


• A new investigation of the FBI"s flubbing of the Clinton e-mail scandal.


• The Podesta Group coming under the scrutiny of one Robert Mueller. (I published a crazy theory on my website in June about Mueller that seems less crazy now.) 


• New revelations about Uranium One and the subsequent announcement of a Congressional probe. Now we await the entrance of a mystery whistleblower who just had his non-disclosure agreement lifted so that he can give testimony.


• The declassification of the JFK files.


• News that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the Trump dossier; a story that amazingly broke first at an oligarch-owned, globalist news organization.

I don"t know about you, but I don"t believe in that many coincidences in that short a period of time. It rather strikes me as coordinated effort.

If it is indeed synchronized, then Trump"s Storm is more akin to a hurricane taking direct aim at the Clinton Foundation and the Obama White House of Corruption than mere gusts of hot air.

What"s left standing at tide"s recession remains to be seen.

While these recent events are encouraging to those of us who"ve railed against the unpunished crimes of our political overlords, we cannot be passive observers.

Now is the time to impress upon our elected leaders that justice delayed is justice denied. If we fail to do so, political, cultural, and economic corruption will destroy the United States as surely as it did the Roman and Ottoman Empires.

We"ll never again have this kind of momentum, folks. We just need to be opportunistic enough to harness it and optimistic enough to believe it really is possible this time.

[Swing by for our storm party, if you"re so inclined. There"s no beer, but there should be plenty of steamed Swamp Critters on the menu soon.]

House Launches Probe Into Comey"s Handling Of Clinton Email Investigation

Much like Hillary"s former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary"s emails despite the existence of a Congressional subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.

After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees,  Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year"s investigation into Hillary Clinton"s private email server. 

Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to "appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.

"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.

 

"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These include, but are not limited to:

 

• FBI"s decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton"s handling of classified information but not to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;


• FBI"s decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;


• FBI"s decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather than the DOJ;


• FBI"s timeline in respect to charging decisions.

 

"The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability of actions taken."

????#BREAKING: @RepGoodlatte & @TGowdySC to investigate #DOJ decisions made in 2016 to ensure transparency and accountability at the agency. pic.twitter.com/EOm4pnHbTG

— House Judiciary ? (@HouseJudiciary) October 24, 2017

Of course, this comes just one day after Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which, these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.

Finally, we leave you with one artist"s depiction of how the Comey "investigation" of Hillary"s email scandal played out...

 

Here is the full letter from Goodlatte and Gowdy:

House Committees Announce Investigation Into Hillary"s Approval Of Russia"s Uranium One Deal

Today is shaping up to be a fairly bad day for Hillary Clinton.  Just moments after the House Judiciary and Oversight committees announced an investigation into Comey"s handling of the Hillary email investigation, the House Intelligence and Oversight committees have also announced an investigation in the Uranium One deal which handed Russia 20% of America"s uranium reserves and landed the Clinton Foundation some $145 million in donations and a $500,000 speaking gig for former President Bill Clinton.

As we"ve pointed out over the past couple of days, the Uranium One deal has recently resurfaced in public discussion after a former FBI informant came forward suggesting that he personally witnessed Russian operatives in a massive bribery, extortion and money laundering scheme discussing efforts to curry favor with the Clintons. The informant has requested an audience with certain Congressional committees but has so far been silenced by an NDA he signed with the FBI.

Here are a couple of our recent posts on the topic as a recap:

• FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions


• Emails Reveal Bill Clinton Met With Vladimir Putin Just Before Uranium One Deal


• FBI Informant "Threatened" After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Case

As the The Hill points out, the Uranium One investigation will initially look into whether or not the FBI bothered to investigate the circumstances surrounding the approval of the deal which occurred during their ongoing investigation.

Two powerful House committees on Tuesday announced a joint investigation into the 2010 sale of a U.S. uranium company to a Russian company.

 

The two panels, the House Intelligence and Oversight Committees, will first probe whether there was an FBI investigation into the deal, approved when former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

 

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) on Monday cited “very, very real concerns about why we would allow a Russian-owned company to get access to 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.”

 

“It’s important we find out why that deal went through.”

 

A confidential informant has come forward to the committees, according to Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), and the two panels are currently in discussions with the Justice Department to release that individual from a nondisclosure agreement.

Meanwhile, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes told reporters earlier that it"s too early to determine whether Hillary will be called to testify.

“It’s a little premature. Let us first determine whether or not there was an open investigation by FBI or DOJ and then we’ll get back to you with more information,” Nunes told reporters.

WATCH LIVE: House Intel committee chair Devin Nunes holds a press conference https://t.co/T5uqoA85rO pic.twitter.com/pgfbQB0yBu

— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 24, 2017

Of course, Hillary once againg reiterated that concerns over the approval of the Uranium One deal, a deal which netted her family foundation $145 million in donations, by a committee on which she served is nothing but "politically motivated baloney."

Coverup? FBI, DOJ Refuse To Comply With Congressional "Trump Dossier" Subpoena

In what looks like a naked coverup meant to obscure the fact that the Department of Justice"s decision to launch a criminal investigation into possible Russia-Trump collusion was based on a lie, Reuters reports that the DOJ and FBI are resisting a Congressional subpoena from to turn over documents that would reveal details about how the infamous "Trump dossier" factored into their decision to launch said investigation.

Despite receiving the subpoena from US Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, the FBI is steadfastly refusing to turn over the documents because the agency says they would purportedly compromise an ongoing criminal investigation (the FBI’s investigation into Mueller). More likely, the agency’s intransigence stems from fears that the one Russia collusion narrative that Democrats have actively worked to suppress could come back to haunt them.

The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas in August seeking “any and all documents” about both agencies’ dealings with former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, according to a letter seen by Reuters from committee chairman Devin Nunes, a Trump supporter.

Steele compiled the so-called Trump dossier, which Trump was told by FBI director James Comey contained salacious material about the businessman-turned president. Trump and his associates have said the dossier’s contents were false.

As we noted earlier this month when the subpoenas were first filed, the now-infamous Trump dossier was provided to the FBI even though it contained knowingly inaccurate allegations. Russia-born financier and Putin opponent Bill Browder revealed as much during an explosive piece of testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee over the summer that was multilaterally ignored by the media, when he claimed that the document was indirectly financed by a “senior Russian government official.”

Unsurprisingly, Nunes and his fellow Republicans are spearheading the subpoena effort, while Democrats on the committee, including leading anti-Trumper Adam Schiff, have resisted their efforts at every turn, claiming the subpoenas are part of a plan to try and "discredit" the dossier"s author, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

To be sure, many of the claims Steele made in the dossier have already been discredited. For example, the FBI has found no evidence, for example, supporting the dossier’s its claim that an attorney for Mr. Trump went to the Czech Republic to meet Kremlin officials, U.S. officials said. The attorney has also denied the claim.

For their part, Republicans on the committee contend that understanding the genesis of the dossier, and whether it was created with the explicit intention of sabotaging Trump, is important.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee has also been battling with the Justice Department for months over its request to interview two FBI officials about Trump’s dismissal in May of Comey as FBI chief, according to letters from the committee and the department. On Sept. 22, it agreed that it would be “appropriate” for the officials to testify provided that it would be in a classified setting and did not interfere with Mueller’s inquiry.

Not unlike the Ring of Sauron from “The Lord of the Rings”, the Trump dossier has created problems for everyone who has touched it. Buzzfeed is being sued for defamation by an individual who was named in the dossier in a case that bears several eerie similarities to the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that killed Gawker. CNN published a series of embarrassing clarifications and retractions. Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele, has been widely criticized for its role in creating the document, and one of its founders was finally compelled to privately testify before a Senate committee after months of dragging his feet.

It has embarrassed the DOJ, which reportedly cited some of its unproven allegations as justification for launching a criminal probe into the Trump campaign – a probe that has dragged on for nearly nine months now, without producing anything that looks like actionable evidence against the president.

It’s long past time for the intelligence agencies to come clean about how the document factored into their thinking. Considering the volume of leaks meant to convey the implication of shadiness without providing anything in the way of actual evidence of collusion, it’s understandable why Trump’s loyalists in Congress want to expose the lies underpinning the collusion narrative.
 

Sarah Sanders Lays Out The Many Ways James Comey Broke Federal Laws In Fiery Press Conference

Sarah Sanders" White House press briefings have seemingly become way more entertaining over the past couple of days.  Maybe it"s just us, but "gotcha" questions from the usual narrative-pushing mainstream media outlets that used to be quickly dismissed by Sanders are suddenly being exploited to put on a daily clinic on how to school brain-dead reporters.

The latest example came today after one such reporter had to seek clarification on why Comey"s leaking of confidential FBI property to the New York Times might violate federal laws.  Here was Sanders" response:

“The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director.  He claims they were private property, but they clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document."

"Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case regardless of classification violates federal laws including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreements, and nondisclosure agreements all personnel must sign. I think that is clean and clear that that would be a violation.”

“The Department of Justice has to look into any allegations of legality, whether or not something is illegal or not — that"s not up to me to decide."

“What I"ve said and what I"m talking about are facts. James Comey"s leaking of information, questionable statements under oath, politicizing investigations, those are real reasons for why he was fired and the president"s decision was 100 percent right, which we"ve said multiple times over and over. In fact, I think the more and more we learn, the more and more that"s been vindicated."

Of course, Sanders" response could always be even clearer...we highly encourage the New York Times, CNN and/or Wapo to ask additional clarifying questions on this Comey issue tomorrow.

Trump Press Secretary Says DOJ "Should Look Into" Prosecution Of James Comey

With all the talk of hurricanes now officially behind us (at least for now), the media was once again able to return to its favorite topic at today"s daily press briefing with Sarah Sanders: Russia.  And with Steve Bannon recently referring to it as the biggest mistake "in modern political history," today seemed like the perfect time to once again ask Sanders for her thoughts on the Comey dismissal.

Luckily, for our entertainment purposes at least, Sanders didn"t back down from a question from a New York Times reporter about President Trump"s current thinking on Comey"s firing.

“The president is proud of the decision that he made.  The president was 100 percent right in firing James Comey. He knew it could be bad for him politically and felt he had an obligation to do what was right for the American people and men and women at the FBI.”

“I think there is no secret Comey by his own self-admission leaked privileged government information weeks before president Trump fired him Comey testified that an FBI agent engaged in the same practice would face serious repercussions.  His actions were improper. He leaked memos to "New York Times." He signaled he would exonerate Hillary Clinton before interviewing her. He is very happy with the decision he made.”

"Comey Exonerated Hillary Clinton Before He Even Interviewed Her" Sarah Sanders Slams NYT Reporter pic.twitter.com/8kvQS6u7fL

— Americas Voice (@AmericasVote16) September 12, 2017

Meanwhile, in a followup question on whether Comey should be prosecuted for his potentially illegal actions, Sanders, once again, did not disappoint.

"That"s not the President"s role.  That"s the job of the Department of Justice and something they should certainly look at."

“I think if there was ever a moment where we feel someone has broken law, particularly if they are the head of the FBI, I think that"s certainly something that should be looked at."

Press Sec. Sarah Sanders says whether former FBI Dir. James Comey should be prosecuted is something the DOJ "should certainly look at." pic.twitter.com/9HqnhTUwtr

— ABC News (@ABC) September 12, 2017

Of course, we can hear the Left"s screams of "witness intimidation" already echoing from the halls of Congress...

Mueller Requests Interviews With 6 Members Of Trump's "Inner Circle"

In one of the Washington Post’s tamest Friday-night bombshells to date, the Jeff Bezos-owned paper of record alleges that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is trying to interview six current and former White House aides, a sign that “the probe that has dogged Trump’s presidency is starting to penetrate a closer circle of aides around the president.”

However, a closer look at exactly who Mueller is hoping to question appears to contradict WaPo’s interpretation: While his list reportedly includes a handful of senior figures like former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former press secretary Sean Spicer, names like Hope Hicks, Don McGahn, James Burnham and Josh Raffel aren’t as widely known to the public - and hardly qualify as "senior aides."

Still, the Post’s anonymous sources claimed that these individuals may have been privy to important decisions, like Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and the White House’s initial reluctance to address warnings about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s integrity, and the reasoning behind them.

Of course, Mueller, who has been keenly interested in the process that ultimately led to the ouster of his friend, and potential witness, James Comey, has continued to press the issue even after Comey himself said he believed Trump"s conduct during a meeting where the president allegedly asked his then-FBI director to "let go" of the investigation into gaps in Flynn"s security clearance disclosures didn"t rise to the level of obstruction of justice.

As for how Comey"s firing may be connected to Russian interference during the election - we"re still not clear on that.

“Each of the six advisers was privy to important internal discussions that have drawn the interest of Mueller’s investigators, including his decision in May to fire FBI Director James B. Comey and the White House’s initial inaction following warnings that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn had withheld information from the public about his private discussions in December with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, according to people familiar with the probe.

The advisers are also connected to internal documents that Mueller’s investigators have asked the White House to produce, according to people familiar with the special counsel’s inquiry.”

Following this round of interviews, it’s widely expected that Mueller could go after senior officials like Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.

“White House officials are expecting that Mueller will seek additional interviews, possibly with family members, including Kushner, who is a West Wing senior adviser, according to the people familiar with Mueller’s inquiry.”

The idea that Mueller wants to interview Kushner is almost ridiculous, considering he has already sat for marathon interviews with investigators from at least two Congressional committees. Former Campaign CEO Paul Manafort has also delivered extensive testimony to Congress.

In addition to Priebus, Spicer and Hicks, Mueller will probably want to question White House counsel Don McGahn.

Mueller has a different reason for speaking with each individual staffer. Hicks, who is now White House communications director, and Raffel were purportedly involved in discussion over how to respond to the New York Times, which was preparing its initial report about the now infamous “Russia meeting.”

However, if Mueller wants to learn more about Hicks"s role in the decision-making process, there appears to be an easier way: He could just pick up a copy of the Post.

“The two communications staffers advocated being transparent about the purpose of the meeting, which Trump Jr. had accepted after he was offered damaging information about Hillary Clinton that he was told was part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign.

Ultimately, according to people familiar with the discussions, the president dictated language for the statement that his son would release to the New York Times, which was preparing a report about the meeting. The response omitted important details about the meeting and presented it as “primarily” devoted to a discussion of the adoption of Russian children.”

Spicer was reportedly drawn in to the administration’s handling of the Flynn firing.

“After The Washington Post reported that Flynn had talked with Kislyak about sanctions, Spicer told reporters that Flynn had “reached out to” Kislyak on Christmas Day to extend holiday greetings — effectively rejecting claims that they had talked about U.S. sanctions against Moscow. A few days later, President Barack Obama had announced he was expelling 35 Russian “intelligence operatives” in response to the Kremlin’s meddling in the U.S. election.

After Obama’s announcement, Spicer said Kislyak had sent a message requesting that Flynn call him.

‘Flynn took that call,’ Spicer said. But he stressed that the call ‘centered on the logistics of setting up a call with the president of Russia and [Trump] after the election.’”

Of course, those leftist conspiracy theorists who believe plotting Russians successfully influenced the outcome of an American election have received plenty of grist from the media this week.

On Thursday, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump Jr. told Congressional investigators that he took the now infamous Russia meeting to try and determine Hillary Clinton’s “fitness” for office. Earlier in the week, Facebook unleashed a veritable firestorm of hysteria after it “admitted” that it had sold at least $100,000 in advertising to a Russian troll farm - though the ads in question didn"t explicitly support either candidate.

While the competing Congressional investigations have largely devolved into a battle of political posturing between competing committees, it seems that Mueller remains determined to cast the widest possible net, suggesting that the former FBI Director is frantically searching for a "smoking gun.

It Wasn't Comey's Decision To Exonerate Hillary - It Was Obama's

Authored by Andrew McCarthy via NationalReview.com,

The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots.

On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.

The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

It shows, they cry, that the fix was in!

News Flash: This is not news.

Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back:

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column:

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Obama’s April statements are the significant ones. They told us how this was going to go. The rest is just details. In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted. Conveniently, his remarks (inevitably echoed by Comey) did not mention that an intent to endanger national security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was suspected of committing – in classic Obama fashion, he was urging her innocence of a strawman crime while dodging any discussion of the crimes she had actually committed.

As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen.

What else was going on in May 2016, while Comey was drafting his findings (even though several of the things he would purportedly “base” them on hadn’t actually happened yet)? Well, as I explained in real time (in a column entitled “Clinton E-mails: Is the Fix In?”), the Obama Justice Department was leaking to the Washington Post that Clinton probably would not be charged – and that her top aide, Cheryl Mills, was considered a cooperating witness rather than a coconspirator.

Why? Well, I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but it turns out the Obama Justice Department had fully adopted the theory of the case announced by President Obama in April. The Post explained that, according to its sources inside the investigation, there was “scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing” because there was “scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in [the] handling of e-mails” (emphasis added). Like Obama, the Post and its sources neglected to mention that Mrs. Clinton’s felonies did not require proof of “malicious intent” or any purpose to harm the United States – just that she willfully transmitted classified information, was grossly negligent in handling it, and withheld or destroyed government records.

As I recounted in the same May 2016 column, the Obama Justice Department was simultaneously barring the FBI from asking Mills questions that went to the heart of the e-mails investigation – questions about the process by which Clinton and her underlings decided which of her 60,000 e-mails to surrender to the State Department, and which would be withheld (it ended up being about 33,000) as purportedly “private” (a goodly percentage were not).

This was the start of a series of Justice Department shenanigans we would come to learn about: Cutting off key areas of inquiry; cutting inexplicable immunity deals; declining to use the grand jury to compel evidence; agreeing to limit searches of computers (in order to miss key time-frames when obstruction occurred); agreeing to destroy physical evidence (laptop computers); failing to charge and squeeze witnesses who made patently false statements; allowing subjects of the investigation to act as lawyers for other subjects of the investigation (in order to promote the charade that some evidence was off-limits due to the attorney-client privilege); and so on. There is a way – a notoriously aggressive way – that the Justice Department and FBI go about their business when they are trying to make a case. Here, they were trying to unmake a case.

Knowing all these things, as we now do and have for a year, I’m baffled by complaints that Comey allegedly made “his” decision not to charge Clinton before key witnesses were interviewed. The main issue is not that witnesses hadn’t been questioned; it is that by April 2016, restraints were already in place to ensure that witness interviews would be fruitless, and that any incriminating information they accidentally turned up would be ignored or buried.

The decision not to indict Hillary Clinton was not made by then-FBI Director Comey. It was made by President Obama and his Justice Department – Comey’s superiors. If you want to say Comey went along for the ride rather than bucking the tide (as he concedes doing when Lynch directed him to call the Clinton probe a “matter,” not an “investigation”), that’s fair. But the fact that Comey already knew in April what he would say in July has long been perfectly obvious.

The Obama administration was going to follow its leader. What Comey ultimately stated was just a repeat of what Obama was openly saying in April, and what Obama’s Justice Department was leaking to the press in May.

Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.

Ben Garrison On Dirty Politics & "Flirting With Civil War"

Authored by Ben Garrison via GrrrGraphics.com,

Robert Mueller is used to dirt. He was complicit in pushing the non-existent Iraq connection to 9-11, which was a lie concocted by Vice President Dick Cheney. (The power behind George W. Bush"s throne). It was a fabrication that led to the death of a half million people. He defended the Patriot Act, torture and unlimited surveillance of the American people. He didn’t question the phony, ‘official’ 9-11 narrative. Like his corrupt associate Comey, Mueller is a Deep State collaborator.

He’s also a bag man who easily bends to political pressure--another similarity he shares with Comey. That’s why he was chosen for his latest assignment: the framing of President Trump. The former FBI director under Bush and Obama probably knows the Russia ‘election hacking’ narrative is nothing but a wild goose chase, so now he wants to investigate Trump’s finances. Even a CNN pointed out that this is wrong and beyond the scope. But Mueller isn’t reeling anything in on his fishing expedition so he wants to cast out farther and farther.

After losing the election in a spectacular manner, Hillary and Podesta invented the "Russia/Trump collusion’ fairy tale not only as an excuse, but also as a means to divert attention away from their very real criminal corruption. They love to blame their enemies for the evil that they themselves commit, which is an old Saul Alinksy trick. Using the Clinton Foundation as a money-laundering operation, Hillary accepted ‘pay for play’ cash from Russia as part of her Uranium One deal. While she was Secretary of State, her husband received $500,000 for a speech he delivered in Moscow. Putin was obviously buying influence from Hillary. Now that she’s not president and can’t easily cover up her traitorous misdeeds, she found it necessary to paint President Trump as the traitor.

Hillary is using Mueller as her personal bloodhound. He’s out sniffing on a trail with no scent, but he still hopes it will lead to President Trump regardless. A far less pristine trail leads to crooked Hillary as well as Obama, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and many others. Despite the abundance of redolent clues they’ve left behind, Mueller has been assigned to sniff at President Trump. It’s a waste of time and taxpayer money.

It’s a charade designed to hide the criminal misdeeds of the Deep State itself.

They may fabricate lies to remove President Trump, but in doing so they’ll also be flirting with civil war. Too many constitutional republic-loving Americans will not tolerate a coup by the swamp.