Skip to comments.DOJ asks watchdog to probe Trump campaign surveillance claims
Posted on 05/20/2018 4:06:15 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked its inspector general to look into whether or not the FBI surveilled President Trump's campaign for "inappropriate purposes."
If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Down the memory hole!
Opposition research. RATS say everyone does it.
ROFL. This is a joke, right?
Rosenstein “asked its inspector general to look into whether or not the FBI surveilled President Trump’s campaign for “inappropriate purposes”.
The jargon alone, ‘inappropriate purposes’ as if there were appropriate purposes and that would be A-OK.
And ROSENSTEIN...Boy, we can really count on that investigation.
It’s Rosenstein’s DOJ. Sessions just keeps him company.
Fox, meet henhouse.
Dunno. Trump said he had been “wiretapped” during the campaign. This was over a year ago. The DOJ works for Trump. Trump and his administration should have done something about this mess long ago. If subordinates didn’t take action they should have been fired. Better late than never I suppose.
“Is this enough?”
A special counsel should be appointed.
The IG can only interview current DOJ employees.
Trump knows the Deep State CAN be extinguished.......b/c really, theyre not that smart. Susan Rice proved that in one memo.
If they were as smart as they think they are, sure-thing Hillary would have won.
IMHO, Obamas CYA maneuver of January 3, 2017-the signing
of NSA Data-Sharing Order Section 2.3 by AG Lynch. could be the coupe detat to blow out The Deep State. Obamas after-the-fact ex/order contains some unusual language particularly the convoluted language WRT The Strategic Delay of Section 2.3 of Obamas Executive Order 12333:
NOTE WELL: Prior to the formal signing of Section 2.3, greater latitude existed within the White House in regards to collection of information especially in relation to the Trump Campaign. However, once signed, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.
But by the time Obamas new executive order was signed on January 3, 2017, all that information was already in the possession of Obama White House.
Thus, Susan Rices email to herself takes on an even greater significance b/c no one was ever supposed to know
about the REAL meaning of Obamas retroactive CYA.....until Rice stupidly laid it all out in an official email.
Sessions should come back tomorrow or quit.
He is useless and is standing there, mouth agape, while our law enforcement institutional credibility is being destroyed.
It will take years for the FBI and DOJ to win back the faith of the citizens.
Sessions is bringing a Chihuahua as watchdog. Beware!
When Susan Rice stupidly wrote a CYA memo to herself, she inadvertently confessed to a series of crimes that added the time line and inferences about what the outgoing Obama administration illegally concealed from incoming President Trump and his aides. CYA memos are rarely a good idea. Most often, they reveal things the author never intendedala Susan Rices now-infamous email to herself.
WHY SUSAN RICE WROTE AN EMAIL TO HERSELF........the extraordinary email Obamas National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017........within minutes of President Trumps inauguration must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?
If you read the email, along with Senator Grassleys letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being Cd?
Most attention, so far, has focused on the first two paragraphs of the email, which describe a meeting that occurred around two weeks earlier.
The participants included
<><> Sally Yateswho turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot
Rice made sure to underscore that Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities by the book. Rice writes Obama stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
This is pure boilerplate.
It represents, obviously, the company line. But Rice did not write her email to cover Barack Obamas rear end. If she or anyone else had wanted to document the claim that Obama said to proceed by the book, the appropriate course would have been an official memo that copied others who were present and would have gone into the file. (My guess is that such a memo was written, but we havent seen it.)
The important part of the email is not the paragraph that purports to exonerate Obama, but the paragraphs that follow: From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
The next paragraph of the email remains classified and has been redacted. The email concludes:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
CONCLUSION Why did Susan Rice send herself an email purporting to document this part of the meeting? Because she was Cing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the presidents direction, she had failed to share information fully as it relates to Russia with President Trumps incoming national security team.
Her actions violated longstanding American tradition. Outgoing administrations have always cooperated in the transition to a new administration, whether of the same or the opposing party, especially on matters relating to national security.
Susan Rice is far from the brightest bulb on the tree, but she was well aware that by concealing facts ostensibly relating to national security from her counterpart in the new administrationGeneral Michael Flynnshe was, at a minimum, violating longstanding civic norms.
If she actually lied to Flynn, she could have been accused of much worse. So Rice wanted to be able to retrieve her email, if she found herself in a sticky situation, and tell the world that she hid relevant facts about Russia from the new administration on Barack Obamas orders.
What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comeys FBI had used Steeles fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didnt want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trumps team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.
There may be more to it than this. The redacted paragraph likely contains more information about what it was that Rice wasnt supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.
The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rices counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynneven Peter Strzok!reported that they didnt think he had lied about anything. And yet, Obamas DOJ and Bob Muellers investigationbasically a continuation of Obamas corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable namepersecuted Flynn to the point where he finally pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in order, as he says, to end the madness and the financial drain.
Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn? Perhaps because they wanted to pre-empt any outrage that may otherwise have followed on revelations that the Obama administrations National Security Advisor hid important facts from her successor during the transition, and may have lied to him about those facts, in violation of all American tradition.
PDJT committed a crime the moment he announced his intention to oppose Hillary Clintons rightful elevation to the Presidency.
When he assembled a team to help him accomplish this goal, he knowingly and intentionally engaged in the conduct of a conspiracy to commit a fraud against humanity and history.
I’m so damned glad that we have an IG and not an AG!
WHEW! LUCKY US! SESSIONS IS THE G*DDAMNNED BEST, BOY!
Not only that but he denied Yeb! his rightful role as Designated Loser.
Steele snd Halper both were paid by the FBI/DOJ, therefore they should be touchable. Halper may want to give testimony before he too ends up a victim of an unsolved robbery turned murder with no money taken from the body.
If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.
Oh, yeah. And who was it again, who signed one of those FISA warrants based on a bunch of fictitious crap paid for by the Hillary campaign? Wow. Look at that. The very same guy we’re supposed to believe is going to be “right on it” in investigating the biggest scandal in American history.
And, by the way, this has nothing to do with Russian collusion - where’s our fearless Attorney General? Why the designated weasel?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.