Archive for the ‘FBI Director’ Category

FBI ‘FAILED TO PRESERVE’ FIVE MONTHS WORTH OF TEXT MESSAGES

Monday, January 22nd, 2018

 

    Well, well, well, the plot thickens !   Nancy
A TWEET BY SARA CARTER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER

Incredible that 5 months of FBI text messages between Page and Struck no longer exist …. those were important months …

THE DAILY CALLER

FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Five Months Of Text Messages Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents

Chuck Ross, Reporter                             January 21, 2018

 

The FBI “failed to preserve” five months work of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.

The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

“The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI’s technical system for retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,” Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of HSGAC. (RELATED: FBI Agents Discussed ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump Win)

He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.

Boyd attributed the failure to “misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI’s collection capabilities.”

“The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected,” Boyd wrote.

Strzok and Page were significant players in the Clinton and Trump investigations. As deputy chief of counterintelligence, Strzok oversaw the Trump investigation when it was opened in July 2016. Weeks earlier, he had wrapped up his work as one of the top investigators on the Clinton email probe.

Both worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation until July 2017.

But Strzok was removed after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered text messages he exchanged with Page, with whom he was having an affair, in which both expressed strong criticism of Trump.

In one text, Strzok called Trump and “idiot.” In another, he said “F Trump.”

In another more cryptic exchange, Strzok spoke of an “insurance policy” that the FBI sought to take out in case Trump defeated Clinton in the election.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016.

“Andy” was a reference to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

“It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok added. Republicans have questioned what Strzok meant by “insurance policy.”

Page left the Mueller team prior to the discovery of the texts.

Johnson expressed concern over the missing text messages, which were sent during a key period of the Russia investigation. During that time frame is when the Steele dossier was published by BuzzFeed News, when Strzok participated in a Jan. 24 interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, and when James Comey was fired as FBI director.

The end date of the missing Strzok-Page texts is also significant. That’s because May 17 is the day when Mueller was appointed to take over the FBI’s probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

“The loss of records from this period is concerning,” Johnson wrote in a letter sent Saturday to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Along with its disclosure of the missing text messages, DOJ’s Boyd handed over 384 pages of additional text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page.

(more…)

Share

CAN A PRESIDENT OBSTRUCT JUSTICE?

Wednesday, December 13th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Can a President Obstruct Justice?

Yes, but not by doing any of the things we know Trump to have done.

Monday, December 11, 2017
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A Casey    Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

Speculation about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has turned toward obstruction of justice—specifically, whether President Trump can be criminally prosecuted for firing James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or for earlier asking Mr. Comey to go easy on onetime national security adviser Mike Flynn. The answer is no. The Constitution forbids Congress to criminalize such conduct by a president, and applying existing statutes in such a manner would violate the separation of powers.

The Constitution creates three coequal branches of government, and no branch may exercise its authority in a manner that would negate or fundamentally undercut the power of another. The power to appoint and remove high-level executive-branch officers, such as the FBI director, is a core aspect of the president’s executive authority. It is the principal means by which a president disciplines the exercise of the executive power the Constitution vests in him.

 

The same is true of Mr. Trump’s request, as purported by Mr. Comey: “I hope you can see your way clear . . . to letting Flynn go.” The FBI director wields core presidential powers when conducting an investigation, and the president is entirely within his rights to inquire about, and to direct, such investigations. The director is free to ignore the president’s inquiries or directions and risk dismissal, or to resign if he believes the president is wrong. Such officials serve at the president’s pleasure and have no right to be free of such dilemmas.

A law criminalizing the president’s removal of an officer for a nefarious motive, or the application of a general law in that way, would be unconstitutional even if the president’s action interferes with a criminal investigation. Such a constraint would subject every exercise of presidential discretion to congressional sanction and judicial review. That would vitiate the executive branch’s coequal status and, when combined with Congress’s impeachment power, establish legislative supremacy—a result the Framers particularly feared.

Mr. Trump’s critics claim that subjecting the president’s actions to scrutiny as potential obstructions of justice is simply a matter of asking judges to do what they do every day in other contexts—determine the purpose or intent behind an action. That is also wrong. The president is not only an individual, but head of the executive branch. Separating his motives between public interests and personal ones—partisan, financial or otherwise—would require the courts to delve into matters that are inherently political. Under Supreme Court precedent stretching back to Marbury v. Madison (1803), the judiciary has no power to do so. And lawmakers enjoy an analogous immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause.

The president’s independence from the other branches does not merely support “energy” in the chief executive, as the Framers intended. It also ensures that he, and he alone, is politically accountable for his subordinates’ conduct. If officials as critical to the executive branch’s core functions as the FBI director could determine whom and how to investigate free from presidential supervision, they would wield the most awesome powers of government with no political accountability. History has demonstrated that even when subject to presidential authority, the FBI director can become a power unto himself—as J. Edgar Hoover was for decades, severely damaging civil liberties.

There are limits to presidential power. The Constitution requires the Senate’s consent for appointment of the highest-level executive-branch officers—a critical check on presidential power. The Supreme Court has upheld statutory limits—although never involving criminal sanction—on the removal of certain kinds of officials. But the decision to fire principal executive-branch officers like the FBI director remains within the president’s discretion. A sitting president can also be subjected to civil lawsuits—but only in a carefully circumscribed fashion, to avoid impeding his ability to discharge the powers of his office.

The ultimate check on presidential power is impeachment. Even though Mr. Trump cannot have violated criminal law in dismissing Mr. Comey, if a majority of representatives believe he acted improperly or corruptly, they are free to impeach him. If two-thirds of senators agree, they can remove him from office. Congress would then be politically accountable for its action. Such is the genius of our Constitution’s checks and balances.

None of this is to suggest the president has absolute immunity from criminal obstruction-of-justice laws. He simply cannot be prosecuted for an otherwise lawful exercise of his constitutional powers. The cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton —the latter impeached, and the former nearly so, for obstruction of justice—have contributed to today’s confusion. These were not criminal charges but articulations of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment.

And in neither case was the accusation based on the president’s exercise of his lawful constitutional powers. If a president authorizes the bribery of a witness to suppress truthful testimony, as Nixon was accused of doing, he can be said to have obstructed justice. Likewise if a president asks a potential witness to commit perjury in a judicial action having nothing to do with the exercise of his office, as Mr. Clinton was accused of doing.

Although neither man could have been prosecuted while in office without his consent, either could have been after leaving office. That’s why President Ford pardoned Nixon—to avoid the spectacle and poisonous political atmosphere of a criminal trial. In Mr. Trump’s case, by contrast, the president exercised the power to fire an executive-branch official whom he may dismiss for any reason, good or bad, or for no reason at all. To construe that as a crime would unravel America’s entire constitutional structure.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s office and Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

 

 

 

 

 

Share

MUELLER, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI AREN’T HELPING THE LAWMAKERS’ PROBE

Saturday, December 9th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Obstruction of Congress

Mueller, the Justice Department and the FBI aren’t helping the lawmakers’ probe.

Share

EXPLOSIVE VIDEO – OBAMA SET A TRAP FOR TRUMP AND HIS INCOMING TEAM

Thursday, December 7th, 2017

EXPLOSIVE VIDEO   : Fred Fleitz, ex CIA, interviewed by Martha McCallum on Fox News on Mueller Investigation –  Obama Administration set a trap for Trump and his incoming team 

 

Share

Wednesday, December 6th, 2017

 

Where does  Jeff Sessions stand, as the new Director of  the Justice Department,  in all of this stonewalling that the Dept of Justice is doing? ( See link below of Jeff Sessions before Congress)  The smell of this whole investigation is nauseating !    Nancy
   www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w0pQWsHQmk  –  Heated exchange between Jeff Sessions and Jim Jordan of  Congress
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mueller’s Credibility Problem

The special counsel is stonewalling Congress and protecting the FBI.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – TUCKER CARLSON – IS THE FBI INCOMPETENT ?

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

 

VIDEO – TUCKER CARLSON – IS THE FBI INCOMPETENT ?
Tucker Carlson laid out a number of reasons to distrust the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Fox News Thursday, earning the praise of President Donald Trump.
Share

IMPORTANT – INTERVIEW WITH SARA CARTER RE OBAMA/CLINTON RUSSIAN COLLUSION

Wednesday, October 25th, 2017

 

This is a very important audio interview that Gadi Adelman, a counter terrorism expert,  just sent of his Israeli Talk Radio interview with Sara Carter of Circa News    – www.circa.com/staff/sara-carter – BIO OF SARA CARTER
(She is an absolutely  fascinating and accomplished woman and award winning investigative journalist)   Nancy  P.S. WARNING –   I’m flying home tomorrow and have an unbelievable back log of articles to send out !!! 
INTERVIEW WITH SARA CARTER




“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Lan astaslem (لن استسلم‎)
“I will never surrender/I will never submit”.

Share

CLINTON COVER-UP BY THE SAME PEOPLE INVESTIGATING TRUMP

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

 

The Clinton Cover-Up Has Been Orchestrated By The Same People Investigating Trump

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. 
  Fox Business  – 
Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.
But there’s more.  It seems it was all covered up for years by the same three people who are now involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over so-called Russian “collusion.”
The incriminating evidence was uncovered by The Hill (John Solomon and Alison Spann) and Circa News (Sara Carter).  Their dogged reporting reveals that the FBI gathered a multitude of documents, secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitnesses accounts showing that Russian nuclear officials directed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton during the very time that Hillary Clinton presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia.
The corrupt scheme is said to have been financed by the Russians through bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  The FBI and the Department of Justice reportedly had the evidence in their possession before the uranium sale, but kept the matter secret and never notified Congress which would surely have stopped the transfer of uranium to Russia.
Indeed, the entire sordid affair remained hidden for seven long years.  Until now.
Clinton Corruption and Racketeering?
Share

COMEY’S SECRET POWER

Saturday, September 9th, 2017

 

Comey’s Secret Power

Here’s a question: What if the FBI had a lot to do with that fake Trump ‘dossier’?

September 8, 2017     By Kimberley Strassel

J. Edgar Hoover’s abuse of power as FBI director led Congress and the Justice Department to put new checks on that most powerful and secretive of offices. By the time Congress finishes investigating James Comey’s role in the 2016 presidential election, those safeguards may be due for an update.

Powerful as Hoover was, even he never simultaneously investigated both major-party candidates for the presidency. Mr. Comey did, and Americans are now getting a glimpse of how much he influenced political events.

Mr. Comey’s actions in the Hillary Clinton email probe are concerning enough. He made himself investigator, judge and jury, breaking the Justice Department’s chain of command. He publicly confirmed the investigation, violating the department’s principles. He announced he would not recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, even as he publicly excoriated her—an extraordinary abuse of his megaphone. Then he rekindled the case only 11 days before the election.

An inquiry by the Senate Judiciary Committee has now shown that Mr. Comey’s investigation was a charade. He wrote a draft statement exonerating Mrs. Clinton in May, long before he bothered to interview her or her staff. This at least finally explains the probe’s lackluster nature: the absence of a grand jury, the failure to follow up on likely perjury, the unorthodox immunity deals made with Clinton aides.

But the big development this week is a new look at how Mr. Comey may have similarly juked the probe into Donald Trump’s purported ties to Russia. The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “dossier.” That dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele.

(more…)

Share

2 VIDEOS – COMEY’S INVESTIGATION INTO HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS

Saturday, September 2nd, 2017

 

If you believe  the FBI investigations of Hillary’s emails AND  the Clinton Foundation were  done in an unprofessional and even fraudulent manner, please go to the White House petition site to voice your protest.       Nancy 
Stalinesque Techniques of Investigation

Comey is in legal jeopardy over exoneration statement, says Chris Farrell

September 1, 2017     Fox Business
Judicial Watch Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, on James Comey, clearing Hillary Clinton before completing the investigation into her emails.  Comey is in legal jeopardy over exoneration statement says Chris Farrell. 

Clinton email investigation was ‘a joke’, says James Kallstrom

September 1, 2017   Fox Business 
Former FBI Assistant Director, James Kallstrom, on James Comey’s decision to draft a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton before investigation was complete. 
Share
Search All Posts
Categories