House Intel Report Finds “No Evidence” of Collusion Between Trump and Russia

(ZHE) — Weeks after the House Intelligence Committee voted to officially close its investigation into whether President Trump colluded with the Russians, it has finally released its official account of its findings in a heavily redacted 253-page report which unambiguously proclaims that the committee “found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian […]

House Inquiry: ‘We Found NO EVIDENCE Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia’

The House Intelligence Committee’s inquiry into Russian election collusion, led by Mike Conaway, said the House agreed with US intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the U.S.’s 2016 presidential election. However, Conaway also stated that there’s no evidence that Donald Trump or anyone associated with the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.

Conaway, the Texas Republican who has led the yearlong probe, announced on Monday the House committee had finished interviewing witnesses and planned to share a draft report with Democratic colleagues on Tuesday. “The bottom line: The Russians did commit active measures against our election in ’16, and we think they will do that in the future,” he told reporters. However, he added, “We found no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it colluded with the Russians.”

According to The BBC, Conway said Republicans conducting the inquiry did not find proof that any of the “Russian meddling” done by the Kremlin was to sway the election in favor of President Donald Trump. The inquiry is just one of several probes looking into alleged Russian meddling.

Investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee are ongoing. Mueller is leading a criminal investigation while the congressional inquiries serve to inform the public and make legislative recommendations.

Russian officials have repeatedly denied intervening in the 2016 election and the Democrats on the panel are expected to release their own report. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the investigation “fundamentally incomplete,” mostly because it’s been a year and Schiff still hasn’t found evidence to back his allegations.  “By ending its oversight role in the only authorized investigation in the House, the Majority has placed the interests of protecting the President over protecting the country, and history will judge its actions harshly,” Schiff said.

President Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, also tweeted about the House Republicans’ conclusion on Monday night.

THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2018

The responses to this tweet have shown that leftists in the United States are far from satisfied with ending an evidenceless 14-month-long investigation. But even though the inquiry may be drawing to a close, the political warfare is just getting started. Many on the left wonder if the committee did enough in their drawn-out investigation to find evidence of collusion.

That these are the key questions the left is pondering is good news for the Trump administration. The admission that no clear-cut evidence of “collusion” has been unearthed shows the weakness in the statement “We just didn’t look hard enough” and doesn’t carry that venomous of a political sting.

Conaway said the panel had done more than enough to find the evidence that just doesn’t exist.  They have spoken to 73 witnesses and reviewed more than 300,000 pages of documents. He said the worst the panel found was “perhaps some bad judgment, inappropriate meetings, inappropriate judgment at taking meetings,” which appeared to refer to a June 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer that has come under scrutiny but that was still not evidence of collusion, according to the House Intelligence Committee.

US Ambassador Calls Own 2015 Statement "Fake News"; Things Then Rapidly Go South

The new US ambassador to the Netherlands, Pete Hoekstra, is not off to a good start following an international embarrassment on Dutch TV in which he smugly denied every saying there are no-go zones in the Netherlands - calling the suggestion "fake news." 

Ambassador Pete Hoekstra

Hoekstra - former congressman (R-MI) and chair of the House Intelligence Committee for two years, was asked by Dutch journalist Wouter Zwart of news program Nieuwsuur about comments he made in 2015: 

Zwart: “You mentioned in a debate that there are no-go zones in the Netherlands, and that cars and politicians are being set on fire in the Netherlands.”

 

Hoekstra: "I didn"t say that. This is actually an incorrect statement. We would call it fake news." 

Zwart then shows Hoekstra a clip of him saying exactly that: 

"The Islamic movement has now gotten to a point where they have put Europe into chaos. Chaos in the Netherlands, there are cars being burnt, there are politicians that are being burnt ... and yes there are no-go zones in the Netherlands" -Pete Hoekstra, 2015

A still-smug Hoekstra deadpans to Zwart, denying that he used the phrase fake news. "I didn"t call that fake news. I didn"t use the words today. I don"t think I did." 

Hoekstra - born in Groningen, Netherlands, was sworn in on December 11th by Mike Pence. In response, he said that he "made certain remarks in 2015 and regret the exchange during the Nieuwsuur interview. Please accept my apology." 

Please see my comments regarding recent interview. Thank you. Pete pic.twitter.com/gxQOcZ8Duk

— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 23, 2017

Ironically, as it turns out, there are several parts of The Netherlands which aren"t quite classified as "no-go" zones, but whose residents are approximately 80% immigrants. In 2007, The Netherlands Housing Ministry identified 40 "problem districts" to be transformed into "dream districts." In a now-deleted (but archived) article, Dutch news outlet RTL Niews published 20 of the districts. 

"no-go zones" in the Netherlands, geenstijl.nl

RTL Niews requested that the government release a ranking of the list from best to worst, which the Council of State - the highest court in the country, forbade.

Islam is the second largest religion in the Netherlands, practiced by around 4 percent of the population. There are currently 47,500 refugees in the Netherlands - nearly twice the number from just three years ago. Under a 2008 regulation, working refugees in the Netherlands pay a 75% tax on their income to cover the cost of food and living expenses, as well as declare any savings or valuables they bring into the country. Asylum seekers are allowed to work for up to 24 weeks per year after they have been in the country for six months. 

Dutch Islamists protesting the arrest of three men alleged to be recruiting for ISIS.

In 2014, three Dutch citizens were arrested on suspicion of recruiting for ISIS in order to assist its armed struggles in Syria and Iraq - leading many to call The Hague "jihad city" and "sharia triangle." 

One of those detained is 32-year-old Azzedine Choukoud, known as Abou Moussa, a charismatic Dutchman of Moroccan descent. He has been involved in demonstrations in recent years, and has been in contact with fighters in Syria. In a YouTube video, he congratulated the Muslim community on the establishment of the caliphate in Iraq and Syria. A few young men hold up a black IS flag in the background.

 

They come from Schilderswijk neighbourhood, which the media have renamed the "sharia triangle". This neighbourhood primarily houses immigrants, as do many neighbourhoods in large Dutch cities - in this case more than 90 percent of the population are immigrants. Dissatisfaction is common and unemployment, crime, and poverty rates are higher than in the rest of the country.

-speisa.com

In 2013, calls for an urgent debate in the Dutch parliament over the integration of Muslim immigrants after an area near the Hague known locally as "the Sharia triangle" is being run by a form of "Sharia police." 

The claims relate to the district of Schilderswijk, about two kilometres from the city centre, where an almost entirely Muslim population of some 5,000 people surrounds the El Islam mosque, fuelling criticism that the government has failed to ensure a proper ethnic mix in schools and local housing. One recent investigation, in which local people were extensively interviewed, concluded that Schilderswijk had become “orthodox Muslim territory” which was now largely ignored by the city authorities, by politicians and even by the police, on the grounds that it had become self-regulating. -Irish Times

The orthodox Muslims had become so dominant in the area that they were dictating neighborhood attire and behavior. In one incident, a local woman claimed that her daughter was approached and told that her short skirt was inappropriate, while her son had been called a "kaffir," a racist term used against non-Muslims.

"Another man said he felt he was gradually being driven out of his home because he had a dog, and many traditional Muslims tended not to keep or favour dogs."

So, as it stands, there are "no-go" zones in The Netherlands, depending on one"s definition. Perhaps Ambassador Hoekstra should have just owned up to his 2015 comments, since the coverup was - as always happens - worse than the truth.

If Libs Were Smart They Would Push For Mueller Firing Himself Now

Authored by Tom Luongo,

The desperation of U.S. liberals to find some truth in the claims that Donald Trump’s campaign staff colluded with Russian state actors is approaching infinity. 

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee all but confirms that the only ‘proof’ the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have of collusion is the discredited “Trump Dossier.”

This dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele and sold to the Clinton Campaign as opposition research by Fusion GPS.  McCabe stonewalled the HIC on this matter but couldn’t point to anything in the dossier that the FBI verified to be true other than publicly-known knowledge of Carter Page visiting Moscow in 2016.

And the last time I checked (as least for now) visiting Moscow is not a crime.

Neither is what Michael Flynn did a crime either, but let’s not bring facts in to dash the hope of the terminally insane.

McCabe has to stonewall on this issue otherwise he and the rest of the FBI are guilty of acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton to assist in spying on her political opponent.  Because that’s where all of this leads if people would take their ideological blinders off for five seconds and look at what we actually know as opposed to what we ‘just know to be true.’

Everyone involved in this sordid affair should be tried for espionage and treason.

Those prominent liberals running around protesting the mere thought of Donald Trump shutting down the Mueller investigation to ‘protect the sanctity of our elections’ are a bunch of simpering morons.

And I’m sick to death of the blatant and rank hypocrisy when it comes to election fraud in this country.

For this reason alone, the Mueller investigation should be shut down.

The Stupid Show

Look, anyone taking the rumor seriously that Donald Trump was close to shutting Mueller’s investigation down should have their head examined.  This was a blatant plant by the Washington  Post (and the CIA, let’s get real) to create exactly the kind of response from the Wil Wheatons of our world.

These people are simply ab-reacting noradrenaline junkies living in their amygdalas 24/7 while the world moves on without them.

Oh, important thing that I forgot: There are hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans who are prepared to take to the streets when Trump tries to fire Mueller, DAG Rosenstein, or otherwise shut down the investigation. We’re organizing here: https://t.co/0NjevMQ4oN (13/12)

— Wil ‘Kick the Nazis off the tweeters’ Wheaton (@wilw) December 19, 2017

I don’t know if we can stop it from happening, or if there are even enough Republicans in government who are capable of putting our country ahead of their party. But read up and know your history, just in case: https://t.co/79YhjPcKq9 (12/12)

— Wil ‘Kick the Nazis off the tweeters’ Wheaton (@wilw) December 19, 2017

If this isn’t the picture of someone in serious need of psychotherapy then …

In the same week we also get this little ditty by Newsweek. You don’t think these things aren’t coordinated to evoke this kind of response in ‘soy-boy’ Wheaton?

Painter, who worked under former president George W. Bush, appeared on MSNBC to discuss the widely criticized Fox News segment that suggested the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign could be considered a coup.

 

“The commander in chief is Donald Trump,” Painter said. “There is a risk of him using that power to destroy our democracy, whether you call it a coup or anything else. It’s not from the critics of Donald Trump that the danger is posed, it’s the fact that the man who is commander in chief of our military is engaged in obstruction of justice.”

 

The salient point here is why would Trump shut down Mueller?

Mueller has nothing on him. The longer this goes on the worse it looks for everyone involved and Trump comes out looking like the victim of a political witch-hunt.

Trump knows and has known from the beginning that there was nothing to investigate.

The only question has been whether Mueller could invent something through nigh-onto-illegal pressuring of people like Flynn, caught in the usual FBI web of procedural dishonesty, to turn on Trump and perjure themselves to avoid a prison sentence.

Trump v. Mueller

In fact, the more I think about the sequence of events, the more I think the meeting between Trump and Mueller the evening before Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel involved Trump telling Mueller, “Good luck finding anything, Bob, I’ll hang you by your own rope when this is all over.”

If I were in Trump’s position I would have done exactly that. I would have goaded Mueller into this, knowing full well that Uranium One was out there. This would have lit a fire under Mueller to cast a wide net, turn over every rock looking for any kind of dirt. Doing so would expose the whole rotten mess and Mueller looks like a guy running around investigating himself in the end.

Remember, Trump is the one that brought up Uranium One in the first place on the campaign trail.

In response, Hillary, as she always does, then accused Trump of that which she was actually guilty of – colluding with the Russians and using her position for personal gain.

The people who want to believe in Russia-Gate are missing this in their zeal to rid the world of Trump to validate their own failing world-view.

The longer this investigation goes on the more it will uncover the truth about what happened. In my mind, all the Mueller is doing now is compiling the actual case to exonerate himself over Uranium One and throw the rest of the FBI under the bus.

Given what we already know, I’d say Bob’s done a good job of this and it’s time for him to step aside and let this play out.

McCabe Testimony Contained "Numerous Conflicts" With Previous Witnesses; Subpoenas Planned

After Eight Hours Of Testimony And More Scheduled For Thursday, Congressional investigators tell Fox News that Deputy FBI Director Andrew 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. 

While HPSCI staff would not confirm who will be summoned for testimony, all indications point to demoted DOJ official Bruce G. Ohr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, who accompanied McCabe, along with other lawyers, to Tuesday’s HPSCI session. -Fox News

“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). 

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

Individuals thought to be on the new subpoena list include demoted DOJ official Bruce Orr and FBI General Counsel James A. Baker. Notably absent, however, is Peter Strzok - the veteran counterintelligence agent in charge of both the Hillary Clinton email "matter" and the early Trump-Russia investigation who sent anti-Trump text messages to his mistress. 

McCabe was described as a "friendly witness" to Democrats in the room, who tried to enlist McCabe in building a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice. "If he could have, he would have" said one witness in the closed door session. 

When asked about how hard the FBI worked to verify the anti-Trump "dossier," McCabe stood by its credibility - despite the FBI"s unwillingness to pay former MI6 spy Christopher Steele an agreed upon $50,000 if he could verify the claims in the document which relied on senior Kremlin officials. 

Per the New York Times

The agent said that if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the offer.

 

Ultimately, he was not paid.

When asked about funding for the 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 has 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." 

Dep FBI Dir McCabe to appear before Hse Judiciary Cmte Thursday in classified setting for a "transcribed interview." DoJ tells cmte "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.”

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 20, 2017

The news comes a week after McCabe canceled a previously scheduled testimony after a Fox News report that the wife of Senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the company which created the Trump-Russia dossier. 

Perhaps McCabe revealed too much to the House Intelligence Committee - because it appears the Judiciary Committee won"t be able to ask McCabe questions such as whether or not the FBI launched their Russia investigation based on the unverified Fusion GPS "Trump-Russia" dossier, which was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC and was created with the cooperation of high level Kremlin officials.

Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr

If McCabe can"t talk about the genesis of the Trump-Russia investigation, it likely also means there will be no discussion of the anti-Trump text messages sent by the lead FBI investigator on both the Clinton email probe and the Trump-Russia investigation to his mistress - which includes the infamous "Insurance Policy" text.

Does this also mean the Clinton email investigation is off limits due to Peter Strzok"s involvement? 

• No questions about the FBI"s extensive edits to the Clinton exoneration statement made by FBI top brass, and overseen by Deputy Director McCabe - which effectively decriminalized the behavior of a candidate for US President while running for office? 

• No questions about the immunity agreements given to Hillary Clinton"s IT staff which installed her illegal server, and went on Reddit to ask how they could "strip VIP"s emails?" 


• No questions about which DOJ employees conducted the "mid-year review" during the investigation of Secretary Clinton"s use of a private email server?

Was McCabe allowed to discuss his potential hatch act violation? 

Perhaps little birds in the House Judiciary Committee will relay the details of tomorrow"s testimony to Fox News and we"ll be all the wiser. 

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. 

Congresswoman Says Rumor Is That Trump Will Fire Mueller Before Christmas

Republican lawmakers have been increasingly frustrated by revelations that one of the FBI agents who had a pivotal role in both the early stages of what became the Mueller investigation and the bureau’s decision to excuse Hillary Clinton shared anti-Trump sentiments with his mistress, also an FBI employee.

Earlier this week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley fired off a letter to the DOJ asking Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to explain this and other disturbing revelations indicating bias toward Trump from within both the DOJ and the Mueller probe specifically. To wit, nearly every Mueller team member donated to at least one of Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. Furthermore, Mueller’s right-hand man Aaron Zebley represented the IT staffer who installed Clinton’s illegal server.

These frustrations came to a head earlier this week when Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rosenstein engaged in a testy exchange during the latter’s public testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Given the mounting pressure on Mueller, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said Friday that the rumor on Capitol Hill is that President Donald Trump is planning to fire Mueller before Christmas, but after Congress leaves Washington for the 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.

According to the Hill, Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that Trump was trying to shut down the committee"s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. As evidence, she pointed to the lack of interviews scheduled for the new year.

The New York Times reported Friday that the committee is scheduling its final witnesses of the year to testify in New York despite important votes coming up in Washington, DC, and confirmed no additional witnesses are scheduled yet in 2018.

"We can read between the lines I think," Speier said. "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."

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), also said Friday that he is worried that Republicans leading the committee are seeking to shut down the committee"s investigation by the end of the year.

"Republicans have scheduled no witnesses after next Friday and none in 2017 [sic]. 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," he tweeted Friday.

Of course, there’s also reason to take Speier’s comments with a grain of salt: Rumors that Trump might fire Mueller have been circulating since May.

"There is no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in October.

[VIDEO] Texts Between Ex-Mueller Team Members Emerge: ‘F Trump’

Text messages were released between an FBI official responsible who was a key figure in the chain of events that began when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump “dossier.” The FBI officials involved sent texts reading “F TRUMP,” among others.

The infamous dossier launched a counterintelligence investigation into “Russian meddling in the election” that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. Text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in 2016 that were obtained by Fox News on Tuesday referred to then-candidate Donald Trump as a “loathsome human” and “an idiot.”

Strzok briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, sources said. But within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was “documentary evidence” that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. Strzok also oversaw the bureau’s interviews with ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – who pleaded guilty to lying to FBI investigators in the Russia probe.

More than 10,000 texts between Strzok and Lisa Page were being reviewed by the Justice Department after Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe after it was revealed that some of them contained anti-Trump content.

The messages were sent during the 2016 campaign and contain discussions about various candidates. On March 2, Strzok texted Page that someone “asked me who I’d vote for, guessed [Ohio Gov. John] Kasich.”

“Seriously?! Would you not [vote] D[emocrat]?” Page responded.

“I don’t know,” Strzok answered. “I suppose Hillary [Clinton].”

“I would [vote] D,” Page affirmed.

Two days later, Page texted Strzok, “God, Trump is a loathsome human.”

“Yet he many[sic] win,” Strzok responded. “Good for Hillary.”

Later the same day, Strzok texted Page, “Omg [Trump’s] an idiot.”

“He’s awful,” Page answered.

“America will get what the voting public deserves,” said Strzok, to which Page responded. “That’s what I’m afraid of.”

Later that same day, Strzok texted Page, “Ok I may vote for Trump.”

“What?” answered Page. “Poor Kasich. He’s the only sensible man up there.”

“He was pretty much calling for death for [NSA leaker] Edward Snowden,” Strzok said. “I’m a single-issue voter. Espionage Machine Party.”

Strzok later told Page, “Exacty [sic] re Kasich. And he has ZERO appeal.”

Twelve days later, after Trump took a commanding lead in the Republican delegate race with victories in key “Super Tuesday” primaries, Page texted Strzok, “I can not believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president.”

Four months later, Strzok and Page exchanged messages mocking Trump and his family at the Republican National Convention.

“Oooh, TURN IT ON, TURN IT ON!!! THE DO*CHEBAGS ARE ABOUT TO COME OUT,” Strzok texted Page on July 19. “You can tell by the excitable clapping.”

Later, Strzok reached out to Page again, saying, “Omg. You listening to npr? Apparently Melania’s speech had passages lifted from Michelle Obama’s…Unbelievable.”

“NO WAY!” Page answered, adding “God, it’s just a two-bit organization. I do so hope his disorganization comes to bite him hard in November.”

On Aug. 6, Page texted Strzok a New York Times article about Muslim lawyer Khzir Khan, who became embroiled in a war of words with Trump after Khan spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

“Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself,” Page wrote in a message attached to the article.

“God that’s a great article,” Strzok answered. “Thanks for sharing. And F TRUMP.“

No wonder the FBI is desperately trying to get the Russian narrative to stick. Democracy and justice no longer exist.

According to Fox News, Strzok, who was an FBI counterintelligence agent, was reassigned to the FBI’s human resources division after the discovery of the exchanges with Page, with whom he was having an affair. Page was briefly on Mueller’s team but has since returned to the FBI.

Strzok was also present during the FBI’s July 2016 interview with Hillary Clinton at the close of the email investigation, shortly before then-FBI director James Comey called her actions “extremely careless” without recommending criminal charges.

Trump Jr. To Meet With House Intel Committee Next Week

In a hearing that we imagine will provide much of the leaked fodder for CNN and MSNBC news coverage over the coming week (certainly once leaked copies of the testimony are distributed to the NSA"s favorite media outlets, WaPo and NYT), CNN reports that Donald Trump Jr. has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee during a closed session.

This wouldn’t be Trump Jr.’s first meeting with one of the Congressional committees that are investigating Russian meddling in last year’s election: He met with Senate Judiciary Committee staff back in September, but angered Democratic lawmakers when he declined to testify publicly. Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal famously accused Trump of leaving “gaps” in his testimony, and said the only way to remedy the situation would be for the president’s son to testify publicly.

Lawmakers who will be present at the Dec. 6 meeting are reportedly hoping to ask Trump more questions about the infamous “Trump Tower meeting” with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and her entourage – a meeting that Trump admitted he took because he was promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. However, by all accounts, Veselnitskaya never had any intention of giving him any such information. Members of the committee recently interviewed several members of Veselnitskaya’s entourage, including Anatoli Samochornov, a translator who attended the meeting. 

According to CNN, Trump’s appearance will be one of the most anticipated events yet of the investigation, particularly following recent revelations of Twitter correspondence he had with WikiLeaks during the campaign season (as a reminder, the extent of his correspondence was exchanging three messages with whomever runs the Wikileaks twitter account.)

Furthermore, the meeting with Trump will cap off a week of hearings involving high-profile Trump associates including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Blackwater founder (and brother to Education Secretary Betsy Devos) Erik Prince.

Prince famously met with a Russian in the Seychelles to set up a purported back-channel between Russia and the Trump White House. Prince denied that was the purpose of the meeting and has said that he was there on behalf of Trump.

Rep. Mike Conaway, the Republican who is leading the House investigation, said Tuesday night that the committee had interviews with key witnesses scheduled through mid-December. He predicted the investigation would continue into next year and even expressed skepticism that it would conclude by the beginning of the midterm primary season in early 2018.

"No," Conaway said when asked if his panel would issue a report summarizing its findings by year"s end. "That would be a surprise."

Trump Jr.’s lawyer refused to confirm the report with CNN. If the committee’s previous conduct during its investigation is any guide, Democratic members hoping to discredit Trump will swiftly leak the most damaging excerpts from his testimony.

Furthermore, if Republican senators do manage to pass their tax reform bill, a well-timed Russia leak could help Democrats distract from the first Republican legislative victory of the Trump era (however, if Trump tax reform stalls, the focus on "Russia collusion" could be a welcome distraction from the complete failure of Trump"s legislative agenda).

Finally, with over a year of president Trump, it is likely that viewers have gotten some Trump "burn in" by now; and yet few things can still drum up Nielsen ratings quite like a chyron with the words “Russia” and "Trump" as MSNBC knows all too well.

Republicans On House Intel Committee Push To End Russia Probe

Earlier this week, we speculated that a shift in Russia-related Democratic talking points could be a sign that Congressional investigators, and possibly even special counsel Robert Mueller, might soon confirm what many have long suspected: that there is no evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Since then, Congress has launched a trio of new investigations into the Obama-era Uranium One deal, reminding lawmakers of the fact that the Clintons have just as many - if not more - ties to shady Russian entities than the Trumps. And now, the Hill reported just minutes ago that Republicans on the House Intelligence committee are pushing to close their investigation by the end of the year, as investigators have failed to find anything conclusively proving Russian interference in the election.

Congressmen complain that the investigation, which was initially intended to investigate possible Russia ties between both the Trump and Clinton campaigns, has instead meandered in several different directions, like the unmasking of Trump associates by Obama-era officials, and the provenance of the so-called "Trump dossier", which it has been confirmed, was funded and sources by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

The committee announced its investigation into Russian election interference in January. Ten months later, the panel is still digging for information, frustrating members who were never enthusiastic about the probe to begin with. Many say they are ready to close the books on the matter.

 

"I think this investigation has gone excruciating slow," Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) told the Hill. “We"ve been doing this for more than a year. We started looking at it on the committee in September [of 2016].”

 

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who is leading the Russia review, told reporters he intends to wrap up the investigation “as soon as I can.”

 

“I have no interest in prolonging this one second longer than it needs to,” he said, adding that the committee intends to do a thorough investigation and “that takes some time.”

As the Hill points out, the Intelligence Committee is one of several congressional panels investigating Russian involvement in the presidential election. It even produced one of the most significant public contributions in the Russia saga to date when then-FBI director James B. Comey confirmed the federal investigation into the matter during a March hearing. But more recently, the probe has focused on the possible quid pro quo between the Clintons and Russia-affiliated entities related to the Obama administration’s approval of a deal that ceded 20% of US uranium reserves to Russian control.

Republican Rep. Tom Rooney, who is assisting Conaway in leading the probe since Chairman Devin Nunes recused himself earlier this year, disputed Democratic accusations that the many side investigations had slowed the probe. Rooney added that the probe should be wrapped up by the end of the year.

“At some point you are going to reach a saturation point where the information, the facts and the evidence are all saying the same thing. There’s nothing new and just keeping it open for the sake of keeping it open is spinning your wheels,” he told the Hill.

 

“We owe the American people a report and the intelligence community a report and I would like that to be sooner rather than later,” he added, citing a desire not to waste taxpayer dollars.

 

Rooney expressed confidence that the panel could complete its work by the end of the year — a deadline that the top Democrat on the committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), called “unrealistic.”

To be sure, the committee will soon be inundated with files related to the FBI’s analysis and handling of the Trump dossier, after the agency acquiesced to the committee’s subpoena following a monthslong struggle.

It remains to be seen what the resolution of the investigation will look like. Congress can’t bring criminal charges - that power is reserved for special counsel Mueller, who appears to be focusing on possible financial crimes committed by former Trump campaign executive Paul Manafort. But it can make recommendations about how to prevent foreign powers from meddling in US elections. Notably, the characterization of the investigation provided by the House is at odds with Senate and Mueller, who continue to aggressively pursue the Russia interference narrative. We’ve noted time and time again that the $100,000 in Facebook ads purchased by a purported Russian troll farm with links to the government pales in comparison to the $100 million-plus spent by the Clinton campaign and allied Super PACs. Yet, lawmakers and the media continue to insist that Russia was running a “sophisticated” interference campaign meant to “sow chaos” by "infecting" the minds of swing state voters.

Facebook, Twitter and Google have said they will send their general counsels to testify before a joint session of the House and Senate Intelligence committees next week. But after that, it appears at least one of the three Congressional investigations launched in the aftermath of Trump’s upset victory will finally be winding down.

Firm Behind "Trump Dossier" Refuses To Comply With Congressional Subpoena

The three co-founders of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm responsible for overseeing the creation of the infamous “Trump dossier”, will refuse to comply with a subpoena ordered by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, according to a letter from their attorneys originally obtained by Business Insider.

But experts say the argument their lawyers are using to ask that they be excused relies on shaky legal grounds, and is unlikely to hold.

Attorneys from Cunningham, Levy & Muse said in a letter that, if called to testify, their clients planned to invoke their first amendment rights to exempt them from answering questions. The move - which has all the hallmarks of a stalling tactic - is the latest attempt by the firm’s founders, who reportedly were aware that not all of the allegations contained in the dossier were credible before turning it over to the FBI, to forestall delivering public testimony. Glenn Simpson, a former WSJ investigative reporter and one of the firm’s three founders, met privately with the Senate Judiciary Committee for ten hours over the summer. Afterwards, a group of senators, including Democrat Richard Blumenthal, pushed for Simpson’s testimony to be made public, and the committee is reportedly still mulling whether to release it.

However, Simpson and his fellow Fusion GPS co-founders Thomas Catan and Peter Fritsch, plan to invoke constitutional privileges and decline to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, their attorney wrote in a letter obtained by Business Insider on Monday.

"We cannot in good conscience do anything but advise our clients to stand on their constitutional privileges, the attorney work product doctrine and contractual obligations," wrote Fusion GPS counsel Josh Levy in response to subpoenas issued earlier this month by the committee"s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes.

Levy argued that complying with the subpoenas would violate "the First Amendment rights" of the cofounders "and would chill any American running for office ... from conducting confidential opposition research in an election."

"Should you compel any of our three clients to appear at the scheduled deposition, they will invoke their constitutional privileges not to testify," Levy wrote. "Since that will be the case, we ask that the Committee excuse them from appearing."

Imprisoned former Pharma CEO Martin Shkreli pled the fifth – the right against self-incrimination – when he appeared before a Congressional panel about prescription-drug pricing in February 2016. At the time, he had been indicted on eight counts of fraud.

Though he officially resigned from the investigation in April following his decision to brief Trump and the press about classified intelligence without first informing his fellow committee members, Nunes has helped steer the committee’s inquiry toward “unmaskings” ordered by Susan Rice and the credibility of the dossier. Many of the dossier’s most egregious claims – such as one alleging that the Russian government was in possession of an embarrassing video of the president – have been debunked.

Levy contended in the letter that Nunes" "unilateral issuance of these subpoenas violates your recusal and further undermines the legitimacy of this investigation."

Nunes reportedly issued the subpoenas just 24 hours after Fusion"s counsel met with "majority and minority staff" for approximately an hour to discuss "a way forward for voluntary cooperation."

"Based on this Committee’s bad faith interactions with the undersigned counsel and its pattern of unprofessional conduct exhibited during different points throughout this investigation, you have left us with no choice but to advise our clients to assert their privileges in the face of these subpoenas," Levy wrote.

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, told Business Insider that Fusion’s “novel” legal strategy was unlikely to succeed.

"That is probably why the attorneys have emphasized other arguments, like Nunes" apparent lack of authority to issue the subpoenas and the fact that Congress didn"t authorize the investigation he"s conducting on his own," Mariotti said.

"Those arguments have more merit, and they draw attention to Nunes" zarre behavior over the past month — including his subpoenas to the DOJ," he added. "That said, if the subpoenas issued by Nunes are valid, then I expect these individuals will be held in contempt if they refuse to testify as ordered."

Republican Rep. Mike Conaway, who is now heading the committee"s investigation, reportedly approved Nunes" subpoenas to Fusion GPS, but House Intelligence Democrats told BI that they weren’t consulted.

Nunes reportedly turned his attention toward Fusion after the FBI refused to turn over documents pertaining to the dossier that were requested by Nunes. The chairman says he’s seeking the documents to help determine how the dossier played into the DOJ’s decision to launch multiple investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election – including claims that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to sway the vote in Trump’s favor.

DOJ has maintained that publicly disclosing the information that Nunes is requesting could compromise an ongoing investigation.

Last month, Senate Intel Committee Chairman Richard Burr said the committee’s investigators had “hit a wall” in their efforts to verify the claims contained in the dossier, in part because investigators couldn’t convince former British spy Christopher Steele, the man hired by Fusion to compile the dossier, to meet with them. However, CNN later reported that special counsel Robert Mueller had managed to interview Steele. While it’s unclear which, if any, of the claims contained in the dossier are true, the US intelligence community opted to omit the allegations from a crucial report released in January.

In summary, after months of resisting investigators’ overtures, it looks like the men behind Fusion GPS will finally be forced to answer some uncomfortable questions about the role they played in fostering the current climate of anti-Russia hysteria. We look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Read the letter below:

361738857-2017-10-16-Letter-to-Chair-D-Nunes by zerohedge on Scribd

Leaked Descriptions Of Infamous "Russia Ads" Derail Collusion Narrative "They Showed Support For Clinton"

That was quick.

Less than a week after Facebook agreed to turn over to Congressional investigators copies of the 3,000-odd political advertisements that the company said it had inadvertently sold to a Russia-linked group intent on meddling in the 2016 presidential election, the contents of the ads have – unsurprisingly – leaked, just as we had expected them to.

Congressional investigators shared the information with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which has repeatedly allowed information about its investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with Russian operatives to leak to the press. Once this happened, we knew it was only a matter of time before the ads became part of the public record.  

And, shockingly, descriptions of the ads provided to the Washington Post hardly fit the narrative that Democratic lawmakers have spun in recent weeks, claiming the ads – which didn’t advocate on behalf of a specific candidate, but rather hewed to political issues like abortion rights – were instrumental in securing Trump’s victory.

After initially denying the story this spring, Facebook came clean earlier this month, saying its investigators had discovered that the company sold at least $100,000 worth of ads – and possibly as much as $150,000 – to Russia-linked group that bought the ads through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts.

WaPo reports that the ads represented issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum, which would suggest that the buyers didn’t intend to support a specific candidate, but rather their own unique agenda.

The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African-American rights groups including Black Lives Matter and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.

The Russian campaign — taking advantage of Facebook’s ability to simultaneously send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics - also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

Of course, support for Hillary Clinton among minority groups was less enthusiastic than it was for Barack Obama, suggesting that the ads perhaps weren’t as effective as some Democratic lawmakers would have voters believe. Despite the innocuous description, WaPo insisted on reporting that the ads were meant to “sow dischord” among different voting blocs that supported Clinton. The paper of record also reported that the targeted messages “highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate US political discourse”…again without explaining exactly how they accomplished this.

These targeted messages, along with others that have surfaced in recent days, highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups already wary of one another.

Yet, WaPo reports that the “nature and detail” of the ads has bothered investigators at Facebook and the Justice Department, as well as those working on behalf of the Congressional committees that are conducting independent investigations. The House and Senate Intelligence committees plan to begin reviewing the Facebook ads in the coming weeks.

Furthermore, the paper ran quotes from Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Adam Schiff, two of the most vocal proponents of the Russia election-hacking conspiracy theory (it is only a theory, after all), describing the ads as part of a sinister effort to undermine the democratic process.

“Their aim was to sow chaos,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than increasing turnout.”

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, said he hoped the public would be able to review the ad campaign.

“I think the American people should see a representative sample of these ads to see how cynical the Russian were using these ads to sow division within our society,” he said, noting that he had not yet seen the ads but had been briefed on them, including the ones mentioning “things like Black Lives Matter.”

For a story that’s supposed to be about the content of political advertisements that are now at the center of a widely followed investigation (much like Don Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer and her entourage in Trump Tower was just a month ago), the WaPo story includes scant details about their contents. For whatever reason, the paper neglected to publish photos of the ads.

We imagine that whoever leaked the story probably figured that once readers see the ads and realize they’re indistinguishable from the rest of the political ad copy running on Facebook, voters will quickly lose interest.

However, that didn’t stop one expert from offering some helpful “context” meant to feed the hysteria without saying anything conclusive. As the paper notes, the expert quoted hasn’t even seen the ads.

While Facebook has downplayed the impact of the Russian ads on the election, Dennis Yu, chief technology officer for BlitzMetrics, a digital marketing company that focuses on Facebook ads, said that $100,000 worth of Facebook ads could have been viewed hundreds of millions of times.

“$100,000 worth of very concentrated posts is very, very powerful,” he said. “When you have a really hot post, you often get this viral multiplier. So when you buy this one ad impression, you can get an extra 20- to 40-times multiplier because those people comment and share it.”

Watts, the Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow, has not seen the Facebook ads promised to Congress, but he and his team saw similar tactics playing out on Twitter and other platforms during the campaign.

With little else to cling to, it appears that investigators – not to mention Trump’s critics - have invested so much in the Facebook interference narrative (not to mention Paul Manafort’s dealings with pro-Russian oligarchs), that admitting they were wrong would just be too damaging.

Manafort Calls On DOJ To Release His Intercepted Phone Calls; Demands Investigation Of Leaks

Less than 24 hours after CNN triggered the latest outbreak of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" by relaying information from anonymous sources that Trump"s former campaign manager Paul Manfort has been under surveillance by the FBI since 2014, Manafort has fired back by calling on the Department of Justice to release all transcripts of his tapped phone calls so that the American public "can come to the same conclusion as the DOJ — there is nothing there."  Per the Daily Caller:

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is calling on the Justice Department to release transcripts of any intercepted communications he may have had with foreigners.

Manafort, a longtime Republican political consultant, also called on the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate the leak of details of secret surveillance warrants obtained by U.S. investigators.

“Mr. Manafort requests that the Department of Justice release any intercepts involving him and any non-Americans so interested parties can come to the same conclusion as the DOJ — there is nothing there,” Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni said in a statement.

Manafort"s spokesman goes on to demand that the DOJ launch an immediate investigation into who continues to commit federal felonies with reckless abandon by leaking details of confidential FISA warrants to the media.

Whether or not Manafort committed a crime — and he has not been charged with anything — the leak of information about FISA warrants is a federal crime, Maloni noted in his statement.

“If true, it is a felony to reveal the existence of a FISA warrant, regardless of the fact that no charges ever emerged,” Maloni said.

Information about FISA warrants is classified and tightly held by government officials and the federal judges that approve them. Unauthorized disclosures of FISA information is also a felony.

At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in March, then-FBI Director James Comey testified that the leak of FISA information is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

In his statement, Maloni called on the Justice Department’s watchdog to “immediately” open an investigation into the leak and to “examine the motivations behind the previous Administration’s effort to surveil a political opponent.”

Of course, this was all triggered by CNN"s "bombshell" story last night which revealed that Manafort has been under an ongoing wiretap, approved by the FISA courts, going back to 2014 and tied to his consulting arrangements with Ukraine"s former ruling party.

That said, the interesting part of CNN"s story came via the revelation that "surveillance [of Manafort] was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence" but was then restarted with a "new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year"...all of which sounds an awful lot like the Obama administration using FISA courts to spy on a political opponent. 

Here are the details as presented by CNN:

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Special counsel Robert Mueller"s team, which is leading the investigation into Russia"s involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications.

A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine"s former ruling party, the sources told CNN.

The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.

The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.

All of which has led many people to question throughout the day whether the Obama administration, as Trump suggested back in March, did intentionally spy on his campaign using FISA warrants.

Certainly these two tweets from CNN"s Jake Tapper would seem to be somewhat contradictory:

Tapper"s initial reaction from March 2017 to Trump"s claim that the Obama administration wiretapped his campaign:

POTUS makes wild accusation w/zero evidence
WH searches for evidence & cant find any
WH tells Congress to find evidence/no further comment

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 5, 2017

Tapper"s follow-up tweet from last night:

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics https://t.co/BY8MACKfV9

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 18, 2017

Oops.

CNN: Rice Unmasked Trump Team Because Obama Was Offended By UAE Crown Prince Visit To NY

For the better part of a year now Americans have speculated over precisely what pressing national security issue may have prompted the Obama administration to take the extreme measure of unmasking the names of Trump officials captured in foreign intelligence reports...you know, because bypassing the typical warrant process and violating an American citizen"s fourth amendment protections is kind of a big deal. 

So what was it...intelligence concerning an imminent terrorist attack...concrete evidence that Putin stole Hillary"s emails?  No, according to CNN, National Security Advisor Susan Rice ultimately made the call to unmask Trump officials because Obama was offended that the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates traveled to New York last December, after the election mind you, without giving him a heads up first.

Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.

The New York meeting preceded a separate effort by the UAE to facilitate a back-channel communication between Russia and the incoming Trump White House.

The crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York last December in the transition period before Trump was sworn into office for a meeting with several top Trump officials, including Michael Flynn, the president"s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his top strategist Steve Bannon, sources said.

The Obama administration felt misled by the United Arab Emirates, which had failed to mention that Zayed was coming to the United States even though it"s customary for foreign dignitaries to notify the US government about their travels, according to several sources familiar with the matter. Rice, who served as then-President Obama"s national security adviser in his second term, told the House Intelligence Committee last week that she requested the names of the Americans mentioned in the classified report be revealed internally, a practice officials in both parties say is common.

Of course, CNN attempts to downplay the gravity of these new revelations but somehow we suspect that Obama getting his feelings hurt over a breach in travel protocol of a foreign dignitary is not a valid reason to spy on American citizens...though we"re not lawyers.

CNN noted that it"s unclear precisely which Trump officials Rice discussed at the House meeting, and thus which officials were ultimately unmasked, but multiple sources apparently confirmed to them that Zayed met at the time with Flynn, Kushner and Bannon. The three-hour discussion focused on a range of issues, including Iran, Yemen and the Mideast peace process, according to two of CNN"s sources who insisted that opening up a back-channel with Russia was not a topic of discussion.

A senior Middle East official told CNN that the UAE did not "mislead" the Obama administration about the crown prince"s visit, but acknowledged not telling the US government about it in advance. The meeting, which took place December 15, 2016, the official said, was simply an effort to build a relationship with senior members of the Trump team who would be working in the administration to share assessments of the region.

"The meeting was about ascertaining the Trump team"s view of the region and sharing the UAE"s view of the region and what the US role should be," the official said. "No one was coming in to sell anything or arrange anything."

Meanwhile, Republican responses on the hearing have been mixed with Trey Gowdy saying it appears as if Rice did nothing illegal while White House press secretary Sarah Sanders simply deferred on the legality of her actions.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press.

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, did not say explicitly whether Trump still believes Rice committed a crime but added the issue of leaking and unmasking needs to be investigated.

"We"ve seen illegal leaking of classified materials, including the identities of American citizens unmasked in intelligence reports," Sanders told CNN. "That"s why the President called for Congress to investigate this matter and why the Department of Justice and Intelligence Community are doing all they can to stamp out this dangerous trend that undermines our national security."

Just to summarize, Susan Rice unmasked the names of American citizens, which effectively means she spied on them without a warrant, because President Obama was offended that the crown prince of the UAE met with the newly elected administration without first giving him a heads up?  Does that sound reasonable to everyone?

Then again, maybe this entire story from Rice/CNN is complete bullshit and was only concocted as a way to avoid admitting that the Obama White House was pissed they lost an election and basically turned the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus into a political weapon to dig up any dirt they could find on an adversary.

So, what say you?

Eric Holder Sends Ominous Late Night Tweet To "Career DOJ/FBI" Employees

Eric Holder, Obama"s former Attorney General and a man who recently hinted at an interest in pursuing a 2020 bid for the White House, issued a rather ominous warning to the "career men & women" of the DOJ/FBI last night saying that their "actions and integrity will be unfairly questioned" before calling upon them to "be prepared, be strong."

"To the career men & women at DOJ/FBI: your actions and integrity will be unfairly questioned. Be prepared, be strong. Duty. Honor. Country."

To the career men & women at DOJ/FBI: your actions and integrity will be unfairly questioned. Be prepared, be strong. Duty. Honor. Country.

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) June 30, 2017

Of course, with the many scandals that plagued Obama"s Justice Department, it"s impossible to know exactly which one sparked Holder"s warning. 

Could it be the outrageous unmasking of Trump officials in the waning days of Obama"s administration, an obvious attempt to exploit the collection of foreign intelligence and use it as a political weapon of mass destruction, and subsequent illegal leaking of that information to the media?  Certainly, this would seem to be a concern for Susan Rice who has been asked to testify before the House Intelligence Committee.

Or, is it a simple message directed at FBI Director McCabe who we recently pointed out is coming under increasing scrutiny for not recusing himself from the investigation of Michael Flynn, a man against whom he very clearly harbored a personal vendetta.

Or, perhaps its that whole James Comey revelation that Eric Holder"s replacement, Loretta Lynch, colluded with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the FBI to quash the investigation of Hillary"s email scandal.

Or, perhaps it"s just a general warning after the FISA court recently revealed the the Obama administration conducted illegal queries targeting American citizens "with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court"...an issue which it described as a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."

"Since 2011, NSA"s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702.  The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court."

"At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government"s failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional "lack of candor" on NSA"s part and emphasized that "this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.""

Or, perhaps its something else entirely.  Just imagine the possibilities...

Maria Bartiromo Slams John Podesta Over His Ties To Russia

Authored by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com,

Even after James O’Keefe and Project Veritas essentially blew the lid right off the fake ‘Russia hacked the election’ narrative, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, John Podesta, doubled down on the debunked narrative when challenged by Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on his ties to a Kremlin-backed company.

Podesta met behind closed doors on Tuesday with the members of the House Intelligence Committee as part of the panel’s investigation into supposed Russian efforts to meddle in the presidential election.

When asked what he could tell the Thursday Fox audience about the House Intel meeting, Podesta explained that the panel wanted to know “what had happened to me and the effect on the campaign … the effect of the Russian interference in our democratic process.”

“They’re probing what actually happened, whether if there was collusion and what we’re going to do about,” Podesta told Bartiromo.

“They asked me not to get into specific questions that they asked me and my specific answers but in general terms, they’re taking a bipartisan look at this stage.”

Fox Host Maria Bartiromo then chimes in with a question that digs sharply into the skin of Podesta.

“Don’t you find it odd that there’s been so much attention on the Trump Campaign and the Trump associates and potential collusion with the Russians when in fact it’s really the Democrats who have deeper and stronger ties to Russia,” Bartiromo said.

“I mean John I have to ask your own situation..”

Bartiromo then goes on to break down how Podesta joined the board of the board of a small energy company in 2011 which later received $35 million from a Kremlin-funded entity. According to Bartiromo, Podesta also owns 75,000 shares in a Russian company and failed to disclose this to the Obama administration.

And this is where things got heated…

Trump Trashes Democrats' Russia Probe "Witch Hunt", Urges Carter Page To "Clear His Name"

President Trump"s angry tweetstorm this morning blasted Democrats, saying they no longer want Carter Page to testify in the investigation into the Russian election meddling, becuse he would counter previous testimony by former FBI and intelligence officials.

As a reminder, The Hill notes, last week, Page, a former adviser to Trump"s campaign, said he would testify before the House Intelligence Committee in early June.

Page, who advised Trump on foreign policy, also said he obtained legal counsel.

Page has been the target of lawmakers investigating possible ties between Trump"s campaign and Russia during the presidential election.

An intelligence dossier alleged Page met with Russian officials while working for the campaign.

Page said in a letter dated May 23 to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the intelligence panel"s ranking member, and Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), who is leading its Russia probe that allegations of Russian interference in the election are false conspiracy theories.

And now it is being reported that Page will not be asked to testify. This has enraged President Trump...

So now it is reported that the Democrats, who have excoriated Carter Page about Russia, don"t want him to testify. He blows away their....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

...case against him & now wants to clear his name by showing "the false or misleading testimony by James Comey, John Brennan..." Witch Hunt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Of course, we will never know why Democrats decided they do not want to grill Page in their standard "5 minutes of fame" public hearing, but one wonders just what is holding them back from such a spectacle?