Posted on 02/02/2018 1:13:35 PM PST by rxsid
Wray’s New Pick for FBI General Counsel Signed Tainted FISA Warrant Application While Acting Attorney General
FBI Director Christopher Wray replaced embattled FBI top lawyer James Baker with Dana Boente to take over as general counsel just days ago.
But that was before Boente’s name was divulged publicly by the House Intel FISA memo showing Boente signed one of the FISA applications that has since been proven problematic and chock full of phony information posing as intelligence to seemingly trick approval from the FISA court to surveil Donald Trump and his team members.
Boente may have to step down form his new FBI post. But Wray would have known this before hiring Boente, so why did he hire him? Perhaps Boente’s name was one of the names Wray was lobbying the White House to redact.
Boente served as acting attorney general after Sally Yates was fired. He also served as acting deputy attorney general before the appointment and confirmation of Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein too signed one of the FISA applications as did Yates.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
According to a Justice Department official, Boente has been selected to be the FBI’s next general counsel to replace James Baker, who was reassigned in late 2017.
The most innocent explanation, which isn’t very innocent, is, “They just put this stuff in front of me routinely, and I sign it.” “It was an accident, I didn’t know how dodgy the underlying information was.”
Throw Wray and all of the out including Roseyshit
Wray can not be trusted.
Talk about spitting in the President’s face (and showing your true stripes). Wray is part of the problem.
Has the guy got a tin hat or what? Extirpate those who participated in any way.
Better pick someone else
P
Looks like the FBI HR department will be getting a new employee soon.
Here's what is really, really interesting here:
1. Boente was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Under the succession rules of the DOJ up until the middle of January 2017, the person in this post was first in the line of succession in the event of a vacancy in the U.S. Deputy AG post.
2. Seven days before he left office, Barack Obama issued an executive order to remove the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from the succession chain.
3. Deputy AG Sally Yates assumed the role of acting AG between the time Eric Holder left and the time Jeff Sessions was confirmed.
4. Before firing Yates for insubordination in late January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order reinstating the prior line of succession.
5. So for a brief time in 2017 between the termination of Yates (January 30th) and the confirmation of Jeff Sessions (February 9th), Dana Boente was the acting U.S. Attorney General.
6. Since Jeff Sessions recused himself from any DOJ matters related to a "Russian collusion" investigation, Boente functioned as the U.S. AG in these matters until Rod Rosenstein was confirmed and sworn into office on April 25th of 2017.
7. Boente announced his retirement from the Eastern District post in late 2017 but announced that he'd remain in office until his replacement was confirmed. The announcement of his retirement came in late October 2017 -- three days before the indictment of Paul Manafort was announced.
8. Rather than wait for a successor to be appointed as he previously announced, Boente stepped down on January 28th of this year and was named as chief counsel of the FBI by Christopher Wray.
9. Five days later, the proverbial SHTF with the release of the Nunes/HPSCI memo.
What the heck is this tangled web of intrigue in the U.S. Department of Justice?
Every GS/FS 14 and above plus all Fed Exec types in the FBI MUST BE FIRED NOW.
Dan Bongino for FBI director.
Nope.
Time to clean house.
Go.
Everyone in the entire federal executive service needs to be fired/replaced.
WRAY IS TAINTED.....
Surely, somewhere there is a “clean” agent and an honest lawyer?
I must admit to being naive.
A. No way is that what happened. Everybody who was anybody at the FBI (and other places) knew.
B. That’s not an excuse. He’s still responsible.
Holder has never been prosecuted for perjury and I doubt if Comey and his gang of Democrat liars will be either.
Posted on May 29, 2013 by John Hinderaker in Holder Justice Department, Obama Administration Scandals
Did Eric Holder Commit Perjury? It Looks That Way
In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder was asked whether the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917. This was his answer:
In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.
Later, the Department of Justice disclosed that Holder had personally approved the application for the search warrant for James Rosen’s Gmail account:
[T]he Department took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General. After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act.
Paul argued this morning that on its face, a perjury charge against Holder seems strong. How could the Attorney General have said that he had never “been involved in,” or even “heard of” the “potential prosecution of the press,” in view of the Rosen search warrant? My own first instinct was to be skeptical of any issue of perjury, on the theory that it would have made sense to search Rosen’s emails even if the only target of the criminal investigation was Kim.
So to test that defense, I went back to the Affidavit by FBI agent Reginald Reyes to see exactly what the Obama administration told the judge (if anything) about Rosen’s status as a potential defendant.
As has been widely reported, the affidavit says repeatedly that there is probable cause to believe that Rosen is guilty of a crime, and that his email account will provide evidence of a crime, as well as “fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed.” But the affidavit goes even beyond that. It specifically says that the FBI is looking for evidence of both Kim’s and Rosen’s guilt:
Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.
Emphasis added. But the real clincher is Paragraph 45, which states in part:
Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.
Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:
Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the _______@gmail.com account.
So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.
Paul quoted Richard Nixon’s statement that perjury is “an awful hard rap to prove,” and because perjury is so dependent on the defendant’s state of mind, Nixon was right. Still, in this instance there appears to be a sound basis to investigate whether Holder should be criminally prosecuted.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/did-eric-holder-commit-perjury-it-looks-that-way.php
Fire him now and tell him to het a lawyer
Re B:
I didn’t say it was an acceptable excuse. Just, that it is a likely one to be floated.
That's part of the problem here.
The (R)'s appear to be scared to death of offending the media. The are afraid to act on the mountains of smoking guns on numerous issues that could easily bring indictments in a fair judicial system.
They need to send very public recommendations to the DOJ for grand jury referral. Then, AG Sessions must step up or step down.
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.