Politics EXPOSING THE DEEP STATE

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
GOP letter reveals FBI divisions over Clinton case decision, conflicting claims on Rosenstein controversy

By Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson | Fox News

House Republicans are shuttering their long-running probes into the FBI and Justice Department’s actions during the 2016 campaign as they hand over the majority to Democrats on Thursday – but disclosed new findings on their way out that undercut the official narrative surrounding the bureau’s decision not to prosecute former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her team for mishandling classified information.

The details were revealed in a letter Friday from outgoing Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., summarizing their findings and reiterating once more their call for a special counsel to be appointed to probe decisions made in the Clinton email and Russia probes – and the “disparate way these two investigations were seemingly conducted.”

The incoming Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff of California, tweeted dismissively about the Republican letter last week, writing, "This is how the House Republican effort to undermine Mueller by ‘investigating the investigators’ ends. Not with a bang, but with a Friday, buried-in-the-holidays whimper, and one foot out the door."

But, the letter to Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz included significant new details, specifically concerning 2016 statements from then-FBI Director James Comey. In July 2016, Comey took the unusual step of publicly recommending against criminal charges over Clinton's use of an unsecured personal server for government business, though the decision to pursue a criminal case ultimately rested with the Justice Department.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey told reporters. Later that month and again in September 2016, Comey testified the decision was "unanimous."

However, Republican House investigators uncovered evidence to the contrary, saying a top FBI lawyer and others relayed that the bureau was divided over the Clinton case recommendation.

"FBI General Counsel James Baker, however, initially did believe the [Clinton email] case could be made from an evidentiary standpoint and multiple witnesses testified to the Committees the FBI's decision not to recommend charges was not 'unanimous,'" they wrote.

The seven-page letter revealed that Baker, the FBI's former top lawyer, was a critical witness on several aspects of the investigation. He also spoke to allegations that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed secretly recording the president and removing him from office two weeks after Comey was fired in May 2017, which Rosenstein adamantly has denied. The chairmen said Baker testified "there were discussions amongst senior FBI and DOJ officials about President Trump's fitness for office, invoking the 25th Amendment, and the prospect of wearing a recording or transmitting device during conversations with the President."

After the allegations first surfaced, Fox News reported on Sept. 22, based on a source who was in the meeting, that Rosenstein's "wire" comments were viewed as "sarcastic." Rosenstein also released a statement saying, "I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false."

Still, the letter said, "Baker relayed comments attributed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as relayed to him. ... There are questions DAG Rosenstein alone can answer and while the allegations are serious, his denial was forceful. The questions deserve to be asked and the DAG deserves his chance to respond."

Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department responded to Fox News' requests for comment on the letter.

Fox News first reported some of the Baker revelations in October, including the fact that then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe consulted Baker, who told House investigators he believed Rosenstein was serious.

Transcripts from Comey's closed-door interviews in December, meanwhile, revealed his lawyer threatened to shut down the session after persistent questions from Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas over whether the former director mishandled classified information when he shared memos documenting conversations with Trump with Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman and lawyers David Kelley and Patrick Fitzgerald. Comey previously testified to a Senate committee that he leaked at least one memo to Richman to kick-start the special counsel investigation.

Ratcliffe questioned who received the memos and whether they had appropriate security clearances, stating that "four of the seven" memos "have been identified either by you [Comey] or by the FBI as containing classified information."

On multiple occasions, Comey declined to answer questions about his handling of the memos, stating Richman, Kelley and Fitzgerald now act as his attorneys. "I can't -- I'm not going to answer questions about my communications with my lawyers," he said.

Comey confirmed that he "did not have written authorization from the FBI to share the February 14th memo, the unclassified memo" with Richman, but Comey would not provide more detail on what memos were shared with Kelley or Fitzgerald.

At one point, Kelley threatened to shut down the questioning. "We're here to answer questions about decisions not made and made by DOJ and the FBI in connection with the Hillary Rodham Clinton investigation and the Russian investigation. This is talking about his firing. Can you explain the relevance of these questions? Because if this continues, we're just going to call it a day," Kelley said.

After the session, Fox News asked Comey if there was a spill of classified information when he shared the memos. "I'm not going to talk about something like that," he responded.

Comey did confirm to House investigators that Horowitz was investigating how Comey created and handled the memos, some of which included classified information.

After the second Comey interview, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee characterized the testimony and GOP line of questioning as old news. "It was a total waste of time, we’re simply rehashing things that have been gone over in public many times before with regard to the FBI and DOJ’s conclusions with respect to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails," Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/go...-conflicting-claims-on-rosenstein-controversy
 
MARIS61 said:
GOP letter reveals FBI divisions over Clinton case decision, conflicting claims on Rosenstein controversy

By Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson | Fox News

House Republicans are shuttering their long-running probes into the FBI and Justice Department’s actions during the 2016 campaign as they hand over the majority to Democrats on Thursday – but disclosed new findings on their way out that undercut the official narrative surrounding the bureau’s decision not to prosecute former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her team for mishandling classified information.

The details were revealed in a letter Friday from outgoing Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., summarizing their findings and reiterating once more their call for a special counsel to be appointed to probe decisions made in the Clinton email and Russia probes – and the “disparate way these two investigations were seemingly conducted.”

The incoming Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff of California, tweeted dismissively about the Republican letter last week, writing, "This is how the House Republican effort to undermine Mueller by ‘investigating the investigators’ ends. Not with a bang, but with a Friday, buried-in-the-holidays whimper, and one foot out the door."

But, the letter to Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz included significant new details, specifically concerning 2016 statements from then-FBI Director James Comey. In July 2016, Comey took the unusual step of publicly recommending against criminal charges over Clinton's use of an unsecured personal server for government business, though the decision to pursue a criminal case ultimately rested with the Justice Department.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey told reporters. Later that month and again in September 2016, Comey testified the decision was "unanimous."

However, Republican House investigators uncovered evidence to the contrary, saying a top FBI lawyer and others relayed that the bureau was divided over the Clinton case recommendation.

"FBI General Counsel James Baker, however, initially did believe the [Clinton email] case could be made from an evidentiary standpoint and multiple witnesses testified to the Committees the FBI's decision not to recommend charges was not 'unanimous,'" they wrote.

The seven-page letter revealed that Baker, the FBI's former top lawyer, was a critical witness on several aspects of the investigation. He also spoke to allegations that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed secretly recording the president and removing him from office two weeks after Comey was fired in May 2017, which Rosenstein adamantly has denied. The chairmen said Baker testified "there were discussions amongst senior FBI and DOJ officials about President Trump's fitness for office, invoking the 25th Amendment, and the prospect of wearing a recording or transmitting device during conversations with the President."

After the allegations first surfaced, Fox News reported on Sept. 22, based on a source who was in the meeting, that Rosenstein's "wire" comments were viewed as "sarcastic." Rosenstein also released a statement saying, "I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false."

Still, the letter said, "Baker relayed comments attributed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as relayed to him. ... There are questions DAG Rosenstein alone can answer and while the allegations are serious, his denial was forceful. The questions deserve to be asked and the DAG deserves his chance to respond."

Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department responded to Fox News' requests for comment on the letter.

Fox News first reported some of the Baker revelations in October, including the fact that then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe consulted Baker, who told House investigators he believed Rosenstein was serious.

Transcripts from Comey's closed-door interviews in December, meanwhile, revealed his lawyer threatened to shut down the session after persistent questions from Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas over whether the former director mishandled classified information when he shared memos documenting conversations with Trump with Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman and lawyers David Kelley and Patrick Fitzgerald. Comey previously testified to a Senate committee that he leaked at least one memo to Richman to kick-start the special counsel investigation.

Ratcliffe questioned who received the memos and whether they had appropriate security clearances, stating that "four of the seven" memos "have been identified either by you [Comey] or by the FBI as containing classified information."

On multiple occasions, Comey declined to answer questions about his handling of the memos, stating Richman, Kelley and Fitzgerald now act as his attorneys. "I can't -- I'm not going to answer questions about my communications with my lawyers," he said.

Comey confirmed that he "did not have written authorization from the FBI to share the February 14th memo, the unclassified memo" with Richman, but Comey would not provide more detail on what memos were shared with Kelley or Fitzgerald.

At one point, Kelley threatened to shut down the questioning. "We're here to answer questions about decisions not made and made by DOJ and the FBI in connection with the Hillary Rodham Clinton investigation and the Russian investigation. This is talking about his firing. Can you explain the relevance of these questions? Because if this continues, we're just going to call it a day," Kelley said.

After the session, Fox News asked Comey if there was a spill of classified information when he shared the memos. "I'm not going to talk about something like that," he responded.

Comey did confirm to House investigators that Horowitz was investigating how Comey created and handled the memos, some of which included classified information.

After the second Comey interview, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee characterized the testimony and GOP line of questioning as old news. "It was a total waste of time, we’re simply rehashing things that have been gone over in public many times before with regard to the FBI and DOJ’s conclusions with respect to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails," Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/go...-conflicting-claims-on-rosenstein-controversy
Click to expand...
Wake me up when those indictments come thru.
 
Judicial Watch Seeks to Question Top Obama-Clinton Officials on Clinton Email Issue, Seeks Depositions of Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes on Benghazi Talking Points Documents
JANUARY 10, 2019


DOJ Colluded Directly with Clinton Email Witnesses to Limit Discovery

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it submitted a court-ordered discovery plan for the depositions of several top former government officials involved in the Clinton email scandal, including Obama administration senior officials Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap.

Judicial Watch “intends to update the Court regarding the depositions of Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills at the conclusion of the 16-week discovery period, unless the Court believes such notice is not necessary.”

The plan for discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:
  • Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
  • Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
The Judicial Watch discovery plan is response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordering the State Department and Department of Justice to join Judicial Watch in submitting discovery in three distinct areas:
  1. Whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; B. Whether the State Department’s intent to settle the case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; C. Whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request.
In his ruling, Lamberth called Clinton’s use of the private email server “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Judicial Watch seeks the depositions of former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and former White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes about the creation and dissemination of the infamous Benghazi talking points because: “No one other than these individuals know better who they were communicating with and where records might be located.”

Judicial Watch also argues for “direct, unfiltered access to [additional] key witnesses with firsthand knowledge and the opportunity to ask follow-up questions” about the illicit Clinton email system. In its pursuit of answers as to whether former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA, Judicial Watch seeks to conduct the following depositions:
  • Jacob Sullivan, Senior advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure.
  • Clarence Finney (Deputy Director, Executive Secretariat Staff)” the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary who was responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Clinton and other State Department officials.” Finney is also among the State Department officials in the emails discussing the processing of the CREW FOIA request and other requests concerning the former Secretary’s email account.
  • Jonathon Wasser, who worked for Finney and who actually conducted searches for records in response to FOIA requests …”
  • FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence E.W. Priestap, “who supervised the Clinton email investigation.” Priestap has not explained “the nature or extent of the FBI’s efforts, such as who the FBI attempted to contact, who the FBI actually talked to, who the FBI requested records from, who actually provided records, and whether the FBI believes those that they requested records from actually returned all of the requested records.”
  • Justin Cooper (employee of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation). Cooper created and managed the clintonemail.com server. His testimony to Congress also appears to contradict portions of testimony provided by former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
  • Eric Boswell (Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security). On March 6, 2009, Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to Cheryl Mills that he “cannot stress too strongly … that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, Secretary Clinton approached Boswell and mentioned she had read the IM and that she “got it.”
  • Heather Samuelson (Senior Advisor & White House Liaison). Until her tenure at the State Department ended in March 2013, Samuelson was tasked with tracking the FOIA request served by CREW. Samuelson subsequently served as one of Secretary Clinton’s personal attorneys and, in 2014, reviewed the clintonemail.com account to identify federal records. The records returned by Clinton in December 2014 were records identified by Samuelson.
Judicial Watch argues that, “as the Court has already recognized, understanding the context of the preparation and dissemination of the [Benghazi] talking points is central” to the Clinton email scandal. For instance, did the State Department know that Clinton “deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?” Was the State Department aware that “Clinton sent or received top-secret information through her private email?”

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

“President Trump, frankly, should demand to know why the State and Justice Department are colluding with Clinton allies and trying to protect Hillary Clinton and themselves from court-ordered questions on the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “But a federal court wants answers – and Judicial Watch discovery plan is a key step to uncovering whether and how Hillary Clinton email misconduct stymied FOIA.”

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...-rhodes-on-benghazi-talking-points-documents/
 
MARIS61 said:
Judicial Watch Seeks to Question Top Obama-Clinton Officials on Clinton Email Issue, Seeks Depositions of Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes on Benghazi Talking Points Documents
JANUARY 10, 2019


DOJ Colluded Directly with Clinton Email Witnesses to Limit Discovery

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it submitted a court-ordered discovery plan for the depositions of several top former government officials involved in the Clinton email scandal, including Obama administration senior officials Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap.

Judicial Watch “intends to update the Court regarding the depositions of Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills at the conclusion of the 16-week discovery period, unless the Court believes such notice is not necessary.”

The plan for discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks:
  • Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
  • Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.
The Judicial Watch discovery plan is response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordering the State Department and Department of Justice to join Judicial Watch in submitting discovery in three distinct areas:
  1. Whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; B. Whether the State Department’s intent to settle the case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; C. Whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request.
In his ruling, Lamberth called Clinton’s use of the private email server “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Judicial Watch seeks the depositions of former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and former White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes about the creation and dissemination of the infamous Benghazi talking points because: “No one other than these individuals know better who they were communicating with and where records might be located.”

Judicial Watch also argues for “direct, unfiltered access to [additional] key witnesses with firsthand knowledge and the opportunity to ask follow-up questions” about the illicit Clinton email system. In its pursuit of answers as to whether former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA, Judicial Watch seeks to conduct the following depositions:
  • Jacob Sullivan, Senior advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure.
  • Clarence Finney (Deputy Director, Executive Secretariat Staff)” the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary who was responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Clinton and other State Department officials.” Finney is also among the State Department officials in the emails discussing the processing of the CREW FOIA request and other requests concerning the former Secretary’s email account.
  • Jonathon Wasser, who worked for Finney and who actually conducted searches for records in response to FOIA requests …”
  • FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence E.W. Priestap, “who supervised the Clinton email investigation.” Priestap has not explained “the nature or extent of the FBI’s efforts, such as who the FBI attempted to contact, who the FBI actually talked to, who the FBI requested records from, who actually provided records, and whether the FBI believes those that they requested records from actually returned all of the requested records.”
  • Justin Cooper (employee of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation). Cooper created and managed the clintonemail.com server. His testimony to Congress also appears to contradict portions of testimony provided by former Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
  • Eric Boswell (Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security). On March 6, 2009, Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to Cheryl Mills that he “cannot stress too strongly … that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, Secretary Clinton approached Boswell and mentioned she had read the IM and that she “got it.”
  • Heather Samuelson (Senior Advisor & White House Liaison). Until her tenure at the State Department ended in March 2013, Samuelson was tasked with tracking the FOIA request served by CREW. Samuelson subsequently served as one of Secretary Clinton’s personal attorneys and, in 2014, reviewed the clintonemail.com account to identify federal records. The records returned by Clinton in December 2014 were records identified by Samuelson.
Judicial Watch argues that, “as the Court has already recognized, understanding the context of the preparation and dissemination of the [Benghazi] talking points is central” to the Clinton email scandal. For instance, did the State Department know that Clinton “deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?” Was the State Department aware that “Clinton sent or received top-secret information through her private email?”

Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.”

Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’”

“President Trump, frankly, should demand to know why the State and Justice Department are colluding with Clinton allies and trying to protect Hillary Clinton and themselves from court-ordered questions on the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “But a federal court wants answers – and Judicial Watch discovery plan is a key step to uncovering whether and how Hillary Clinton email misconduct stymied FOIA.”

This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...-rhodes-on-benghazi-talking-points-documents/
Click to expand...
Do you promise to wake me when some indictments come down?
You forgot to wake me the last time there were indictments which I believe was during the Watergate hearings.
 
Lanny said:
Do you promise to wake me when some indictments come down?
You forgot to wake me the last time there were indictments which I believe was during the Watergate hearings.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...rimes#2009–2017_(Barack_Obama_(D)_presidency)

2009–2017 (Barack Obama (D) presidency)
Executive branch
Legislative branch
  • Steve Stockman (R-TX) was convicted of fraud. (2018)[4]
  • Anthony Weiner (D-NY)[5] was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was made to sign the sexual offenders register. (2017)[6]
  • Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges. (2017)[7][8]
  • Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges. (2016)[9]
  • Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for illegally structuring bank transactions related to payment of $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.[10] (2016)
  • Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to eight months in prison. (2015)[11][12]
  • Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)[13][14][15]
  • Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)[16]
  • Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two-and-one-half years' imprisonment. (2013)[17]
  • Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)[18][19]
Judicial branch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...rimes#2009–2017_(Barack_Obama_(D)_presidency)
 
MARIS61 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes#2009–2017_(Barack_Obama_(D)_presidency)

2009–2017 (Barack Obama (D) presidency)
Executive branch
Legislative branch
  • Steve Stockman (R-TX) was convicted of fraud. (2018)[4]
  • Anthony Weiner (D-NY)[5] was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was made to sign the sexual offenders register. (2017)[6]
  • Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges. (2017)[7][8]
  • Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges. (2016)[9]
  • Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for illegally structuring bank transactions related to payment of $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.[10] (2016)
  • Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to eight months in prison. (2015)[11][12]
  • Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)[13][14][15]
  • Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)[16]
  • Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two-and-one-half years' imprisonment. (2013)[17]
  • Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)[18][19]
Judicial branch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes#2009–2017_(Barack_Obama_(D)_presidency)
Click to expand...
I'm looking and looking for some sort of connection to the thread you responded to but goose egg which I intended to be about Benghazi and Obama Administration officials. Okay, you got me on Petraeus, a Republican, convicted of sharing information with a United States Army Colonel writing for some sort of publication, as I seem to recall.

All you Legislative gibberish had absolutely nothing to do with my post that you were supposed to be responding to.

Did I miss something?
 
Newt Gingrich: Reported FBI probe of Trump was led by anti-Trump fanatics who betrayed Constitution

By Newt Gingrich | Fox News
New York Times: FBI opened counterintelligence probe on Trump to investigate potential of him working with Russia

The extraordinary story published Friday night in The New York Times headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia” tells us how deeply sick the Washington establishment has become.

A group of bureaucrats – elected by no one – sat in a room and decided they would investigate the new president of the United States for possible treason. Let me repeat: treason. This is, after all, the implication of this investigation.

This group of bureaucrats reports to no one in elected authority. In a Justice Department where employees gave 97 percent of their presidential campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton, the hostility toward – and fear of – newly elected President Trump was deep.

The senior members of the Justice Department (all promoted under the Obama administration) were clearly prepared to go all-out to repudiate the verdict of the American people in the 2016 election.

Further, these were Justice Department bureaucrats who had ignored the Clinton Foundation scandals, minimized the investigation into the Clinton email and Internet scandal, and ignored former President Clinton collecting money from Russians overseas while his wife was secretary of state.

Suddenly, these hitherto passive, dispassionate, and tolerant “law enforcement” bureaucrats were galvanized into investigating a president for possible treason.

When they made this decision, who did they share it with? Obviously, they could not go to President Trump, since he was the target of their investigation.

In an orderly world, they might have gone to Vice President Mike Pence and briefed him. Pence, after all, was a member of the U.S. House and governor of Indiana before he was vice president. There is no taint of any scandal involving anything Pence has ever done.

If these Justice Department anti-Trump fanatics were afraid to go to the White House, they could have briefed the leaders of the Judiciary and the Intelligence committees in the House and Senate. At that point they would have had some potential reality check.

As President Trump’s former attorney John Dowd said Saturday: “The (New York) Times story is an unwitting disclosure and verification of the utter corruption of their oaths by (fired FBI Director James) Comey and his colleagues to undermine the free election of the President of the United States. It was apparently done under the supervision of the Deputy Attorney General, who was reportedly ready to wear a wire to ensnare President Trump. This is the stuff of banana republics and dictatorships. This despicable, unlawful, official conduct undermines our entire federal criminal justice system which protects our liberty as a free people.”

This rogue investigation eventually mutated into the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that has ruined lives, kept Americans in solitary confinement, and coerced confessions through threats of life-destroying and financially bankrupting prosecutions.

President Trump was not betraying the Constitution. There is no evidence he ever considered betraying his country for the Russians. It is the Justice Department bureaucrats who have been betraying the Constitution.

Leaking this report to The New York Times rather than submitting it to the Congress is just one more example of the willingness of Justice Department officials to violate the rules and undermine the rule of law in favor of the rule of power. It also lays bare their alliance with the liberal media to undermine and, if possible, destroy the duly elected president of the United States.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/new...anti-trump-fanatics-who-betrayed-constitution
 
MARIS61 said:
Newt Gingrich: Reported FBI probe of Trump was led by anti-Trump fanatics who betrayed Constitution

By Newt Gingrich | Fox News
New York Times: FBI opened counterintelligence probe on Trump to investigate potential of him working with Russia

The extraordinary story published Friday night in The New York Times headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia” tells us how deeply sick the Washington establishment has become.

A group of bureaucrats – elected by no one – sat in a room and decided they would investigate the new president of the United States for possible treason. Let me repeat: treason. This is, after all, the implication of this investigation.

This group of bureaucrats reports to no one in elected authority. In a Justice Department where employees gave 97 percent of their presidential campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton, the hostility toward – and fear of – newly elected President Trump was deep.

The senior members of the Justice Department (all promoted under the Obama administration) were clearly prepared to go all-out to repudiate the verdict of the American people in the 2016 election.

Further, these were Justice Department bureaucrats who had ignored the Clinton Foundation scandals, minimized the investigation into the Clinton email and Internet scandal, and ignored former President Clinton collecting money from Russians overseas while his wife was secretary of state.

Suddenly, these hitherto passive, dispassionate, and tolerant “law enforcement” bureaucrats were galvanized into investigating a president for possible treason.

When they made this decision, who did they share it with? Obviously, they could not go to President Trump, since he was the target of their investigation.

In an orderly world, they might have gone to Vice President Mike Pence and briefed him. Pence, after all, was a member of the U.S. House and governor of Indiana before he was vice president. There is no taint of any scandal involving anything Pence has ever done.

If these Justice Department anti-Trump fanatics were afraid to go to the White House, they could have briefed the leaders of the Judiciary and the Intelligence committees in the House and Senate. At that point they would have had some potential reality check.

As President Trump’s former attorney John Dowd said Saturday: “The (New York) Times story is an unwitting disclosure and verification of the utter corruption of their oaths by (fired FBI Director James) Comey and his colleagues to undermine the free election of the President of the United States. It was apparently done under the supervision of the Deputy Attorney General, who was reportedly ready to wear a wire to ensnare President Trump. This is the stuff of banana republics and dictatorships. This despicable, unlawful, official conduct undermines our entire federal criminal justice system which protects our liberty as a free people.”

This rogue investigation eventually mutated into the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that has ruined lives, kept Americans in solitary confinement, and coerced confessions through threats of life-destroying and financially bankrupting prosecutions.

President Trump was not betraying the Constitution. There is no evidence he ever considered betraying his country for the Russians. It is the Justice Department bureaucrats who have been betraying the Constitution.

Leaking this report to The New York Times rather than submitting it to the Congress is just one more example of the willingness of Justice Department officials to violate the rules and undermine the rule of law in favor of the rule of power. It also lays bare their alliance with the liberal media to undermine and, if possible, destroy the duly elected president of the United States.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/new...anti-trump-fanatics-who-betrayed-constitution
Click to expand...
Newt Gingrich and Fox News, what a combination. LOL
 
Another Deep State traitor exposed.

Former top FBI lawyer James Baker subject of criminal media leak probe, transcript reveals

By Catherine Herridge | Fox News

Rep. John Ratcliffe confirms his questions to former FBI general counsel James Baker uncovered the claims first reported by the New York Times; Catherine Herridge has the details.

The former top lawyer at the FBI has been under federal investigation for leaking to the media, a letter from House Republicans revealed Tuesday.

The letter from GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows cited the transcript of a congressional interview with former General Counsel James Baker and his lawyer last fall, where the probe conducted by seasoned U.S. Attorney John Durham was confirmed.

“You may or may not know, [Baker has] been the subject of a leak investigation … a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department,” lawyer Daniel Levin told lawmakers, as he pushed back on questions about his client’s conversations with reporters.

Jordan and Meadows’ letter was sent to Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, and requested additional information about the probe later this month.

"As we continue our oversight and investigative work, we felt it prudent to write to you seeking an update. Without being apprised of the contours of your leak investigation and Baker’s role, we run the risk of inadvertently interfering with your prosecutorial plans," they wrote.

James-A-Baker.jpg

James A. Baker, former general counsel for the FBI, was revealed to be the subject of a leak probe. (Michigan Law)

The transcript of the closed-door interview and the letter do not include details explaining why the investigation is being led out of the Connecticut office. The status of the investigation is not publicly known.

But the disclosure marks the latest confirmation of a leak investigation involving FBI figures who have since left the bureau.

Last year, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe saw his leak case referred to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. McCabe was fired for lying to federal investigators about his role in a media leak regarding the Clinton Foundation on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.

The letter from the GOP lawmakers cited other concerns that arose as part of their own investigation when Republicans controlled the House:

"The Committees learned that in some instances, high-ranking DOJ and FBI officials, including the FBI General Counsel James Baker and DOJ Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, took the self-described ‘unusual’ step of inserting themselves into the evidentiary chain of custody."

Documents reviewed by Fox News indicate that Ohr became the back-channel between Christopher Steele, author of the controversial and unverified anti-Trump “dossier,” and the FBI after he was fired by the bureau for lying about his contact with the media. According to a January 2018 memo by House Intelligence Committee Republicans on government surveillance practices, "Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an authorized disclosure of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, Mother Jones article.”

According to the DOJ website, Durham is a seasoned prosecutor who has been tapped by Republicans and Democrats to handle high-profile, national controversies.

Durham has held various positions in the District of Connecticut for 35 years, prosecuting organized and violent crime, as well as public corruption. From 2008 to 2012, he also served as the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he investigated the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes of senior Al Qaeda operatives and, prior to that, he reviewed alleged criminal wrongdoing by FBI personnel in Boston connected to the Whitey Bulger case.

Fox News is reaching out to FBI and Baker, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s office in Connecticut, for comment on the new letter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...f-federal-media-leak-probe-transcript-reveals
 
MARIS61 said:
Another Deep State traitor exposed.

Former top FBI lawyer James Baker subject of criminal media leak probe, transcript reveals

By Catherine Herridge | Fox News

Rep. John Ratcliffe confirms his questions to former FBI general counsel James Baker uncovered the claims first reported by the New York Times; Catherine Herridge has the details.

The former top lawyer at the FBI has been under federal investigation for leaking to the media, a letter from House Republicans revealed Tuesday.

The letter from GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows cited the transcript of a congressional interview with former General Counsel James Baker and his lawyer last fall, where the probe conducted by seasoned U.S. Attorney John Durham was confirmed.

“You may or may not know, [Baker has] been the subject of a leak investigation … a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department,” lawyer Daniel Levin told lawmakers, as he pushed back on questions about his client’s conversations with reporters.

Jordan and Meadows’ letter was sent to Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, and requested additional information about the probe later this month.

"As we continue our oversight and investigative work, we felt it prudent to write to you seeking an update. Without being apprised of the contours of your leak investigation and Baker’s role, we run the risk of inadvertently interfering with your prosecutorial plans," they wrote.

James-A-Baker.jpg

James A. Baker, former general counsel for the FBI, was revealed to be the subject of a leak probe. (Michigan Law)

The transcript of the closed-door interview and the letter do not include details explaining why the investigation is being led out of the Connecticut office. The status of the investigation is not publicly known.

But the disclosure marks the latest confirmation of a leak investigation involving FBI figures who have since left the bureau.

Last year, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe saw his leak case referred to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. McCabe was fired for lying to federal investigators about his role in a media leak regarding the Clinton Foundation on the eve of the 2016 presidential election.

The letter from the GOP lawmakers cited other concerns that arose as part of their own investigation when Republicans controlled the House:

"The Committees learned that in some instances, high-ranking DOJ and FBI officials, including the FBI General Counsel James Baker and DOJ Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, took the self-described ‘unusual’ step of inserting themselves into the evidentiary chain of custody."

Documents reviewed by Fox News indicate that Ohr became the back-channel between Christopher Steele, author of the controversial and unverified anti-Trump “dossier,” and the FBI after he was fired by the bureau for lying about his contact with the media. According to a January 2018 memo by House Intelligence Committee Republicans on government surveillance practices, "Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an authorized disclosure of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, Mother Jones article.”

According to the DOJ website, Durham is a seasoned prosecutor who has been tapped by Republicans and Democrats to handle high-profile, national controversies.

Durham has held various positions in the District of Connecticut for 35 years, prosecuting organized and violent crime, as well as public corruption. From 2008 to 2012, he also served as the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he investigated the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes of senior Al Qaeda operatives and, prior to that, he reviewed alleged criminal wrongdoing by FBI personnel in Boston connected to the Whitey Bulger case.

Fox News is reaching out to FBI and Baker, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s office in Connecticut, for comment on the new letter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...f-federal-media-leak-probe-transcript-reveals
Click to expand...
Don't tell me, any day now?
 
Judge orders Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes to answer written Benghazi questions in Clinton email lawsuit

By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
Rice-Clinton-Rhodes-.jpg

Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes (Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department's response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied a request by the conservative group Judicial Watch to make Rice and Rhodes sit for depositions, but agreed to have them answer written questions. He also agreed to Judicial Watch's request to depose the State Department about the preparation of talking points for Rice, then President Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, ahead of appearances on political talk shows the Sunday following the attack. That deposition is part of Judicial Watch's inquiry into whether the State Department acted in bad faith by not telling a court for months that they had asked in mid-2014 for missing emails to be returned.

CLINTON'S USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER AMONG 'GRAVEST' OFFENSES TO TRANSPARENCY, JUDGE SAYS

Rice initially claimed on several talk shows that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam video. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

"Rice's talking points and State's understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case," Lamberth wrote in a 16-page order.

Lamberth added that "State's role in the [talking] points' content and development could shed light on Clinton's motives for shielding her emails from [Freedom of Information Act] requesters or on State's reluctance to search her emails."

Lamberth also allowed Judicial Watch to seek written answers from Bill Priestap, the former assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Priestap, who supervised the bureau's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, retired from government service at the end of last year.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The judge's order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton's use of a private email account was "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency" and said the response of the State and Justice Departments "smacks of outrageous misconduct."

As part of the discovery, Judicial Watch can depose Jacob Sullivan, Clinton's former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and Justin Cooper, a longtime Bill Clinton aide who helped arrange the setup of Hillary Clinton's private email address and server.

Judicial Watch said the discovery period will conclude within 120 days. A post-discovery hearing will then be held to determine whether additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, may be deposed.
 
MARIS61 said:
Judge orders Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes to answer written Benghazi questions in Clinton email lawsuit

By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
Rice-Clinton-Rhodes-.jpg

Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes (Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes must answer written questions about the State Department's response to the deadly 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether Hillary Clinton sought to deliberately evade public record laws by using a private email server while secretary of state.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth denied a request by the conservative group Judicial Watch to make Rice and Rhodes sit for depositions, but agreed to have them answer written questions. He also agreed to Judicial Watch's request to depose the State Department about the preparation of talking points for Rice, then President Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, ahead of appearances on political talk shows the Sunday following the attack. That deposition is part of Judicial Watch's inquiry into whether the State Department acted in bad faith by not telling a court for months that they had asked in mid-2014 for missing emails to be returned.

CLINTON'S USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER AMONG 'GRAVEST' OFFENSES TO TRANSPARENCY, JUDGE SAYS

Rice initially claimed on several talk shows that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam video. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

"Rice's talking points and State's understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case," Lamberth wrote in a 16-page order.

Lamberth added that "State's role in the [talking] points' content and development could shed light on Clinton's motives for shielding her emails from [Freedom of Information Act] requesters or on State's reluctance to search her emails."

Lamberth also allowed Judicial Watch to seek written answers from Bill Priestap, the former assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Priestap, who supervised the bureau's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server, retired from government service at the end of last year.

“In a major victory for accountability, Judge Lamberth today authorized Judicial Watch to take discovery on whether the Clinton email system evaded FOIA and whether the Benghazi scandal was one reason for keeping Mrs. Clinton’s email secret,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Today, Judicial Watch issued document requests and other discovery to the State Department about the Clinton email scandal. Next up, we will begin questioning key witnesses under oath.”

The judge's order amounts to approval of a discovery plan he ordered last month. In that ruling, Lamberth wrote that Clinton's use of a private email account was "one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency" and said the response of the State and Justice Departments "smacks of outrageous misconduct."

As part of the discovery, Judicial Watch can depose Jacob Sullivan, Clinton's former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, and Justin Cooper, a longtime Bill Clinton aide who helped arrange the setup of Hillary Clinton's private email address and server.

Judicial Watch said the discovery period will conclude within 120 days. A post-discovery hearing will then be held to determine whether additional witnesses, including Clinton and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, may be deposed.
Click to expand...
Indictments are right around the corner.
 
New details of 2016 meeting with Trump dossier author conflict with Dems’ timeline

Catherine Herridge

According to the transcript of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr's closed-door interview, Ohr was clear that he could not vouch for the credibility of the anti-Trump dossier; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports. New details contained in congressional transcripts and emails about a July 2016 meeting involving the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie, appear to conflict with claims from Democrats -- and the co-founder of the firm behind the dossier -- that significant contacts did not occur until after the election.

According to the records, the little-known breakfast meeting was held on July 30, 2016 at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel.

Congressional transcripts, confirmed by Fox News, showed Nellie Ohr told House investigators last year that Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled the dossier, wanted to get word to the FBI at the time.

“My understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce (Ohr) could put in a word with the FBI to follow-up in some way,” Nellie Ohr testified in response to a Republican line of questioning, regarding the purpose of the meeting. Bruce Ohr did just that, almost immediately contacting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Asked by House investigators what they talked about at the breakfast meeting, Nellie Ohr said: “[Steele’s] suspicions that Russian Government figures were supporting the candidacy of Donald Trump.”

The transcripts came from closed-door interviews conducted last year by the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees when they were under Republican control. The transcripts are undergoing an FBI and DOJ review and are not public.

Nellie Ohr was of interest to investigators since she conducted opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump for the firm Fusion GPS – the same company that commissioned the dossier. Her husband, meanwhile, is a senior official at the Justice Department who became a back channel between Steele and the FBI, after Steele was fired by the bureau on the eve of the 2016 presidential election over his contacts with the media.

In her testimony, Nellie Ohr also said that pieces of the unverified dossier – which later would be used to secure a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page – may have been shared during the meal.

In response to a committee Democrat's line of questioning, Ohr stated, "At the breakfast, I – if I recall correctly, they may have shown pieces ..." of the document.

Ohr said she never saw the entire body of opposition research, later dubbed the "dossier," until it was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.

Question: "Okay. And you hadn't seen it or its portions during the time that you were employed, correct?"

Ohr: "I -- if I recall correctly, I may have seen a -- maybe a page or something of it at the breakfast."

Email traffic, reviewed by Fox News, indicated that Steele broached the possibility of a meeting with Bruce Ohr as early as July 1, 2016.

He emailed Ohr at the time: "I am seeing [redacted] in London next week to discuss ongoing business but there is something separate I wanted to discuss with you informally and separately. It concerns our favourite business tycoon!"

Subsequent emails between Ohr and Steele also confirmed the July 30 meeting in Washington.

Nellie Ohr’s testimony regarding Steele and the FBI would appear to align with her husband’s.

Fox News recently reported that Bruce Ohr told House investigators as part of the Republican-led probe that shortly after the July 30, 2016 meeting, his “first move” was to reach out to senior FBI officials.

Fox News recently confirmed the Bruce Ohr transcript said: “Andy McCabe, yes and met with him and Lisa Page and provided information to him. I subsequently met with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and eventually [an FBI agent]. And I also provided this information to people in the criminal division specifically Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann.” (Strzok and Page left the bureau last year after their anti-Trump texts emerged. Swartz was a deputy assistant attorney general. Weissmann was chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section before becoming a senior prosecutor on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Ahmad worked at the DOJ and is also now assigned to Mueller’s team.)

However, congressional Democrats have asserted many of the contacts occurred later in the year.

There appeared to be another discrepancy.

The emails showed Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was in contact with Ohr in August 2016. However, Simpson's November 2017 transcribed interview before the House Intelligence Committee showed him saying he worked through Bruce Ohr "sometime after Thanksgiving."

Fox News recently asked the FBI, Justice Department and special counsel's office whether the meetings with Ohr over Steele and the dossier were consistent with -- or in conflict with -- existing DOJ or FBI rules, including chain-of-custody procedures for handling evidence. In addition, the special counsel's office was asked whether Weissmann and Ahmad had fully disclosed their contacts with Bruce Ohr and others over the dossier.

The FBI and special counsel declined to comment; the DOJ did not immediately respond.

An attorney for Nellie Ohr did not respond to a request for comment. An attorney for McCabe did not respond.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ith-dems’-timeline/ar-BBSSu9T?ocid=spartanntp
 
Judicial Watch Sues for Records of Former FBI Counsel Baker’s Communications with Anti-Trump Dossier Author
JANUARY 30, 2019

FOIA Lawsuit also Seeks Records of Communication Between Baker and Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, and David Corn – Three Other Key Figures Tied to Dossier

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice for all records of communication from January 2016 to January 2018 between former FBI General Counsel James Baker and anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to compel the FBI to comply with a January 5, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00177). The lawsuit seeks:

Any and all records of communication, including but not limited to emails, text messages and instant chats, sent between Baker and any of the following individuals: former British intelligence officer Steele, principal of Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd.; Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS; former GPS contractor Nellie Ohr; and/or David Corn, a reporter with Mother Jones magazine.

The FBI claimed it had no responsive records, but Baker was deeply involved with the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation for leaking to the media.

The FBI’s “no records” response is belied by Baker’s closed-door congressional testimony in October 2018, in which he reportedly testified that David Corn, a reporter at the far Left Mother Jones magazine, had provided him with a copy of the anti-Trump dossier the day after President Trump’s 2016 election victory. Baker also reportedly testified that he believed at the time Corn received the dossier from Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS.

Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr is the wife of former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who was a key conduit between dossier author Christopher Steele and the FBI. Former FBI Director James Comey himself called the dossier “salacious and unverified.”

Judicial Watch in August 2018 filed a related lawsuit seeking records about the Ohrs’ involvement in the anti-Trump dossier and the FBI’s meetings with the Democratic National Committee’s law firm Perkins Coie. In November Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit about the firm itself.

Perkins Coie had hired Fusion GPS to dig into President Trump’s background. Baker reportedly told congressional investigators that Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann “initiated contact with [Baker] and provided documents and computer storage devices on Russian hacking.” The contact was made in late 2016 as federal investigators prepared a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

In August 2018, Judicial Watch released FBI records showing that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” after he disclosed his relationship to the FBI to a third party. The documents show at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016.

Baker also advised top FBI officials during the Hillary Clinton email scandal. He left his role as general counsel in January 2018 and resigned from the FBI in May 2018.

“The real collusion scandal of the 2016 election is the effort by the Clinton campaign and the Obama DOJ/FBI to spy on and destroy President Donald Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “And it looks like the FBI is covering up documents on this Russiagate scandal, which is why Judicial Watch is again in federal court.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ommunications-with-anti-trump-dossier-author/
 
MARIS61 said:
Judicial Watch Sues for Records of Former FBI Counsel Baker’s Communications with Anti-Trump Dossier Author
JANUARY 30, 2019

FOIA Lawsuit also Seeks Records of Communication Between Baker and Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, and David Corn – Three Other Key Figures Tied to Dossier

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice for all records of communication from January 2016 to January 2018 between former FBI General Counsel James Baker and anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to compel the FBI to comply with a January 5, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00177). The lawsuit seeks:

Any and all records of communication, including but not limited to emails, text messages and instant chats, sent between Baker and any of the following individuals: former British intelligence officer Steele, principal of Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd.; Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS; former GPS contractor Nellie Ohr; and/or David Corn, a reporter with Mother Jones magazine.

The FBI claimed it had no responsive records, but Baker was deeply involved with the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation for leaking to the media.

The FBI’s “no records” response is belied by Baker’s closed-door congressional testimony in October 2018, in which he reportedly testified that David Corn, a reporter at the far Left Mother Jones magazine, had provided him with a copy of the anti-Trump dossier the day after President Trump’s 2016 election victory. Baker also reportedly testified that he believed at the time Corn received the dossier from Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS.

Fusion GPS employee Nellie Ohr is the wife of former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who was a key conduit between dossier author Christopher Steele and the FBI. Former FBI Director James Comey himself called the dossier “salacious and unverified.”

Judicial Watch in August 2018 filed a related lawsuit seeking records about the Ohrs’ involvement in the anti-Trump dossier and the FBI’s meetings with the Democratic National Committee’s law firm Perkins Coie. In November Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit about the firm itself.

Perkins Coie had hired Fusion GPS to dig into President Trump’s background. Baker reportedly told congressional investigators that Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann “initiated contact with [Baker] and provided documents and computer storage devices on Russian hacking.” The contact was made in late 2016 as federal investigators prepared a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

In August 2018, Judicial Watch released FBI records showing that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” after he disclosed his relationship to the FBI to a third party. The documents show at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016.

Baker also advised top FBI officials during the Hillary Clinton email scandal. He left his role as general counsel in January 2018 and resigned from the FBI in May 2018.

“The real collusion scandal of the 2016 election is the effort by the Clinton campaign and the Obama DOJ/FBI to spy on and destroy President Donald Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “And it looks like the FBI is covering up documents on this Russiagate scandal, which is why Judicial Watch is again in federal court.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ommunications-with-anti-trump-dossier-author/
Click to expand...
Let me know when they get somewhere.
 
Graham calls McCabe comments 'beyond stunning' as he threatens to subpoena former FBI chief

By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to investigate alleged discussions at the Department of Justice about invoking the 25th Amendment as a way to oust President Trump from office and threatened to subpoena former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe if he refused to testify on the matter before the Senate.

"We're going to find out what happened here and the only way I know to find out is to call the people in under oath and find out, through questioning, who's telling the truth because the underlying accusation is beyond stunning," Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CBS’ "Face the Nation."

Graham added that he also plans to subpoena both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if they won’t voluntarily agree to testify before the committee.

"There is no organization beyond scrutiny," Graham said. "There is no organization that can't withstand scrutiny. And the FBI will come out stronger."

He said: "But we've got to get to the bottom of it. What are people to think after they watch "60 Minutes" when they hear this accusation by the acting deputy — acting FBI director that the deputy attorney general encouraged him to try to find ways to count votes to replace the president? That can't go unaddressed."

Graham’s comments come on the heels of a Fox News story that reported that former FBI lawyer James Baker, in closed-door testimony to Congress, detailed alleged discussions among senior officials at the Justice Department about invoking the 25th Amendment.

The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book.

Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials. But in his testimony, the lawyer said McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to him to relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including discussions of the 25th Amendment.

“I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the deputy attorney general, he had stated that he -- this was what was related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment,” Baker told the committees.

Graham's comments on Sunday come after he floated the idea of a subpoena last week in a comment to Fox News about the Justice Department discussions.

"I would like to know what happened," Graham told Fox News. "You're having a conversation about whether or not you're going to invoke the 25th Amendment. I imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, my Democratic colleagues would want to know about that conversation if it involved a Democrat."

CBS News reported on McCabe’s comments after he told “60 Minutes” that Justice Department officials discussed the possibility of removing Trump via the 25th Amendment and that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.

The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for removing a sitting president from office. One way that could happen is if a majority of the president’s Cabinet says the president is incapable of discharging his duties.

The Justice Department issued a statement calling McCabe’s comments “inaccurate and factually incorrect."

Reports of the discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment and of Rosenstein wearing a wire were reported in The New York Times.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gr...-as-he-threatens-to-subpoena-former-fbi-chief
 
MARIS61 said:
Graham calls McCabe comments 'beyond stunning' as he threatens to subpoena former FBI chief

By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to investigate alleged discussions at the Department of Justice about invoking the 25th Amendment as a way to oust President Trump from office and threatened to subpoena former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe if he refused to testify on the matter before the Senate.

"We're going to find out what happened here and the only way I know to find out is to call the people in under oath and find out, through questioning, who's telling the truth because the underlying accusation is beyond stunning," Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CBS’ "Face the Nation."

Graham added that he also plans to subpoena both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if they won’t voluntarily agree to testify before the committee.

"There is no organization beyond scrutiny," Graham said. "There is no organization that can't withstand scrutiny. And the FBI will come out stronger."

He said: "But we've got to get to the bottom of it. What are people to think after they watch "60 Minutes" when they hear this accusation by the acting deputy — acting FBI director that the deputy attorney general encouraged him to try to find ways to count votes to replace the president? That can't go unaddressed."

Graham’s comments come on the heels of a Fox News story that reported that former FBI lawyer James Baker, in closed-door testimony to Congress, detailed alleged discussions among senior officials at the Justice Department about invoking the 25th Amendment.

The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book.

Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials. But in his testimony, the lawyer said McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to him to relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including discussions of the 25th Amendment.

“I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the deputy attorney general, he had stated that he -- this was what was related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment,” Baker told the committees.

Graham's comments on Sunday come after he floated the idea of a subpoena last week in a comment to Fox News about the Justice Department discussions.

"I would like to know what happened," Graham told Fox News. "You're having a conversation about whether or not you're going to invoke the 25th Amendment. I imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, my Democratic colleagues would want to know about that conversation if it involved a Democrat."

CBS News reported on McCabe’s comments after he told “60 Minutes” that Justice Department officials discussed the possibility of removing Trump via the 25th Amendment and that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.

The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for removing a sitting president from office. One way that could happen is if a majority of the president’s Cabinet says the president is incapable of discharging his duties.

The Justice Department issued a statement calling McCabe’s comments “inaccurate and factually incorrect."

Reports of the discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment and of Rosenstein wearing a wire were reported in The New York Times.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gr...-as-he-threatens-to-subpoena-former-fbi-chief
Click to expand...
It isn't a coup if you just talk about it a little
 
barfo said:
It isn't a coup if it is constitutional.

barfo
Click to expand...
I think there needs to be a large percentage of the cabinet on board to do. I don't believe just a couple can execute the 25th.
 
MARIS61 said:
Graham calls McCabe comments 'beyond stunning' as he threatens to subpoena former FBI chief

By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to investigate alleged discussions at the Department of Justice about invoking the 25th Amendment as a way to oust President Trump from office and threatened to subpoena former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe if he refused to testify on the matter before the Senate.

"We're going to find out what happened here and the only way I know to find out is to call the people in under oath and find out, through questioning, who's telling the truth because the underlying accusation is beyond stunning," Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CBS’ "Face the Nation."

Graham added that he also plans to subpoena both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if they won’t voluntarily agree to testify before the committee.

"There is no organization beyond scrutiny," Graham said. "There is no organization that can't withstand scrutiny. And the FBI will come out stronger."

He said: "But we've got to get to the bottom of it. What are people to think after they watch "60 Minutes" when they hear this accusation by the acting deputy — acting FBI director that the deputy attorney general encouraged him to try to find ways to count votes to replace the president? That can't go unaddressed."

Graham’s comments come on the heels of a Fox News story that reported that former FBI lawyer James Baker, in closed-door testimony to Congress, detailed alleged discussions among senior officials at the Justice Department about invoking the 25th Amendment.

The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book.

Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials. But in his testimony, the lawyer said McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to him to relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including discussions of the 25th Amendment.

“I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the deputy attorney general, he had stated that he -- this was what was related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment,” Baker told the committees.

Graham's comments on Sunday come after he floated the idea of a subpoena last week in a comment to Fox News about the Justice Department discussions.

"I would like to know what happened," Graham told Fox News. "You're having a conversation about whether or not you're going to invoke the 25th Amendment. I imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, my Democratic colleagues would want to know about that conversation if it involved a Democrat."

CBS News reported on McCabe’s comments after he told “60 Minutes” that Justice Department officials discussed the possibility of removing Trump via the 25th Amendment and that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.


The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for removing a sitting president from office. One way that could happen is if a majority of the president’s Cabinet says the president is incapable of discharging his duties.

The Justice Department issued a statement calling McCabe’s comments “inaccurate and factually incorrect."

Reports of the discussions of invoking the 25th Amendment and of Rosenstein wearing a wire were reported in The New York Times.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gr...-as-he-threatens-to-subpoena-former-fbi-chief
Click to expand...
Senator Graham truly is a scholar, I think we all know that.
 
Hoopguru said:
I think there needs to be a large percentage of the cabinet on board to do. I don't believe just a couple can execute the 25th.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the VP plus a majority of the cabinet.

So two guys who aren't in the cabinet talking about the 25th is definitely not a coup (unless they are plotting to force the cabinet members to vote aye at gunpoint).

Nor would it be a coup for the VP and the cabinet to actually invoke the 25th. A coup is an illegal overthrow of government.

barfo
 
Judicial Watch Sues for ‘Coup’ Documents
FEBRUARY 19, 2019

Judicial Watch https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org

https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Top DOJ Officials considered asking Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment in order to remove President Trump and discussed recording meetings with him

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communication of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the Office of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussing the 25th Amendment or presidential fitness. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks all recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the Executive Office of the President or Vice President.
The suit was filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to three separate FOIA requests dated September 21, 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00388)). The lawsuit seeks all written and audio/visual records of any FBI/DOJ discussions regarding the 25th Amendment and plans to secretly record President Trump in the Oval Office.

On February 14, 2019, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe stated in an interview with CBS that “there were conversations about the possibility of removing Trump under the 25th Amendment and confirming that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.”

After President Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly top DOJ officials discussed whether to recruit cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

President Trump recently tweeted: “The biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in our history, and it’s much worse than we thought. Andrew McCabe (FBI) admitted to plotting a coup (government overthrow) when he was serving in the FBI, before he was fired for lying & leaking.”

It was reported in September 2018 that Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested that he secretly record President Trump in the White House in an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment and have President Trump removed. Judicial Watch’s immediate follow-up FOIA requests were ignored.

“It is no surprise that we are facing an immense cover-up of senior FBI and DOJ leadership discussions to pursue a seditious coup against President Trump,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This effort to overthrow President Trump is a fundamental threat to our constitutional republic so Judicial Watch will do everything it can in the courts to expose everything possible about this lawlessness.”

###
 
If America was a socialist state all these Deep State losers would be dead in a ditch just about 2 years ago.
 
MARIS61 said:
If America was a socialist state all these Deep State losers would be dead in a ditch just about 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

That explains it. I was in Sweden recently and there were dozens of bureaucrat corpses alongside the roads.

barfo
 
MARIS61 said:
Judicial Watch Sues for ‘Coup’ Documents
FEBRUARY 19, 2019

Judicial Watch https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org

https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Top DOJ Officials considered asking Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment in order to remove President Trump and discussed recording meetings with him

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communication of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the Office of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussing the 25th Amendment or presidential fitness. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks all recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the Executive Office of the President or Vice President.
The suit was filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to three separate FOIA requests dated September 21, 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00388)). The lawsuit seeks all written and audio/visual records of any FBI/DOJ discussions regarding the 25th Amendment and plans to secretly record President Trump in the Oval Office.

On February 14, 2019, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe stated in an interview with CBS that “there were conversations about the possibility of removing Trump under the 25th Amendment and confirming that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.”

After President Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly top DOJ officials discussed whether to recruit cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

President Trump recently tweeted: “The biggest abuse of power and corruption scandal in our history, and it’s much worse than we thought. Andrew McCabe (FBI) admitted to plotting a coup (government overthrow) when he was serving in the FBI, before he was fired for lying & leaking.”

It was reported in September 2018 that Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested that he secretly record President Trump in the White House in an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment and have President Trump removed. Judicial Watch’s immediate follow-up FOIA requests were ignored.

“It is no surprise that we are facing an immense cover-up of senior FBI and DOJ leadership discussions to pursue a seditious coup against President Trump,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This effort to overthrow President Trump is a fundamental threat to our constitutional republic so Judicial Watch will do everything it can in the courts to expose everything possible about this lawlessness.”

###
Click to expand...
This from Wikipedia:
"Founded in 1994, JW has primarily targeted Democrats, in particular the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton, although it has sued Republicans as well including the administration of George W. Bush. It has also filed lawsuits against government climate scientists; Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch
 
barfo said:
Yes, it's the VP plus a majority of the cabinet.

So two guys who aren't in the cabinet talking about the 25th is definitely not a coup (unless they are plotting to force the cabinet members to vote aye at gunpoint).

Nor would it be a coup for the VP and the cabinet to actually invoke the 25th. A coup is an illegal overthrow of government.

barfo
Click to expand...
Here endeth the lesson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top