-PJ
Posted on 08/15/2020 2:06:51 PM PDT by CheshireTheCat
The Wall Street Journal’s Bill McGurn said Friday it’s likely that Democrats are wondering who “blabbed” to U.S. Attorney John Durham after he announced that a top FBI lawyer would plead guilty to one count of altering evidence during the Russia probe into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
His comments come a day after Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General William Barr last year to look into the origins of the so-called “Spygate” counterintelligence investigation, announced that former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith agreed to plead guilty to altering a FISA court application to spy on then-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
During an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, McGurn was asked to respond to a series of video clips in which Democrats, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California and presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden, dismissed Durham’s investigation as politically motivated.
“Is that a risk?” Baier asked McGurn....
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
That's what I was thinking. If they announce the charge, isn't the deal-making phase already over? In fact, hasn't whatever was proffered already been made good?
Nothing will happen before the election.
If they can drag this out and Biden wins, they will all be home free as of Jan. 21, 2021, and the DOJ will start looking for ways to bring charges against Trump and officials of the current administration. Swalwell has already announced their plans for criminal prosecution of President Trump.
Yes, a great deal more will happen before the election. Pay back time. The Democrats let the Mueller probe go on until the mid term elections were over and they took the House majority. The Mueller probe was all bullshit and cold have ended a year earlier. They kept it going to affect the mid terms and that created the bullshit impeachment scam. To hell with this election timing crap. When the guilty parties are known than charge them and prosecute them.
Clinesmith is YOUNG and he got ALL these JUICY JOBS in the FBI....SO.....he must have been DIRTY from the get-go.
From what I read U.S. Attorney John Durham is too good of an investigator for that not to happen!!!
-PJ
Ding, ding, ding but Andy is a bit too slick to go direct, probably had a cutout somehow.
“I’m pretty sure U.S. Attorney John Durham offered FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith IMMUNITY....”
I believe he was looking at 20 years, but pleaded down to 5 years. That’s fine with me as long as his cellmate is a big guy named “killer” who hasn’t experienced carnal knowledge for many years.
Hillary has put this man on suicide watch.
In Strzok and Page own texts, they took their classified (text) conversations and texted them on their personal Apple phones, to avoid detection.
They also put classified docs on a Gmail account they would both sign into to communicate Secretly and edit docs.
They, along with Comey, could’ve easily been charged with mishandling classified documents. Mueller, Huber, Durham, Wray - none of them did the obvious thing which is to subpoena their personal phones.
They didn’t because they aren’t interested in prosecuting them.
Clinesmith is a no-brainer, but he’s also not a DoJ/FBi decision maker. Those people, who have made millions on books/media desks and GoFundme are untouchables.
.
According to the legal complaint, the DNC said to remedy the hack they had to “decommission more than 140 servers, removed and reinstall software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers.”
=======================================================
Now President Trump
<><> is questioning what happened to the servers, and,
<><> why they were decommissioned before DOJ was able to review what was on them.
=======================================
It is crucial to remember that the House IT spymaster, Paki Imran Awan, worked for D/W/S who then-headed the DNC.
<><>The Paki clan IT'ed for dozens of elected Democrats on a shared basis.
<><> Some reports say almost 80 House Democrats employed the Paki IT's.
Taxpayers demand to know the extent of DNC assistance to
<><>(A) members of the House intelligence panel, and,
<><>(B) members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
==========================================
> MEED TO KNOW
<><>Were Democrats' govt intel computers ever transported off-premises?
<><>Did the FBI and/or Secret Service accompany and supervise the transport of the Democrats' servers?
<><> Did the Awan clan have an active email account?
<><> Was there continuity of Democrat intel computer activity or did the intel computers ever go off-line?
<><> Who received Democrats' govt intel?
<><>Did the Awan clan get officially qualified by the DNC to handle national-security-level data?
<><> Did the Aan clan ever “upgrade, manage, and secure” the DNC server.
<><> What - specifically - did they do?
<><> Did the DNC vet the Awan clan for security clearance to handle this type of intel?
<><> What were the DNC firewall protocols in place at the time?
<><>Who, by name, had access to Democrats' intel computers, and the administrative authorization to do so?
<><>When was that authorization given?
<><>Did the the Awan clan ever remove all intel data from Democrats' computers?
<><> Was malware or antivirus also on the servers?
<><> Was the inherent firewall, virus protection, or operating system “upgraded, managed, and secured” by the brothers?
<><> Did the DNC report any incidents such as DOS attack, hacking, etc. How were they resolved?
<><> Did the Awan maintain the DNC intel computer? Here and in Pakistan?
<><> Does the DNC know if the House Permanent Intelligence Committee computers in functioning condition at this time?
<><> Does the DNC have the work schedule of the clan just prior to being outed for security breaches?
<><> Were normal and regular backup procedures executed on the servers?
<><> Where are the back-ups kept?
<><> If no backups were taken, does the DNC have a disaster recovery location? Where is that?
<><> Did the DNC have a backup plan if the House Permanent Intelligence Committee plan intel equipment failed or was found to have been compromised?
<><> Does the DNC list other foreign nationals (from countries President Obama identified as terrorist countries) employed on Capitol Hill?
<><> Did the DNC list foreign nationals by name and country who currently have access to US intel and are using govt computers.
Did the NY Times admit — and defend — Obama’s spying on Trump?
NYPOST.COM ^ | may 4, 2019 | Michael Goodwin
FR Posted on 6/15/2019, 7:16:44 AM by Liz
The NYT is reporting Obama’s FBI sent a “cloaked investigator” to London to meet with Trump aide George Papadopoulos in Sept 2016.....spinning news designed to protect deep-state sources.
AG Barr’s promise to investigate the investigators spooked the Deep State. The result is news with a “modified limited hangout” approach, where fragments are presented as revelations while the full picture remains artfully hidden.
The NYT story repeatedly suggests Azra Turk is an FBI agent, but doesn’t say so directly probably means she isn’t. Reporter Adam Goldman, told CNN they called Turk a government investigator “for a reason, and I’m going to leave it at that”.....said the deep-state errand boy.
Naturally, all sources are anonymous, identified generally as “people familiar with the operation.”
My guess is they include Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other dirty cops worried they are in Barr’s crosshairs. They should worry, especially about Barr’s probe into leaks.
There is no question that FBI officials were among the same reporters’ sources all along as the Times painted Trump as a Russian agent.
Which is why the NYT assures readers there was nothing amiss in the Obama-ordered spying, arguing that the existence of an “operation aimed at a presidential campaign” reveals “the level of alarm inside the FBI” over Russian efforts to disrupt the 2016 election......an odd and extremely biased way to describe the possibly illegal effort by the Obama admin to spy on the presidential campaign of the opposition.
Imagine how that sentence would be written if a Republican president spied on a Democratic candidate.
And why are the reporters certain the spying was legitimate and not a plot to stop Trump from being elected? Because their sources say so, making this a powerful example of why the Times was wrong to abolish its standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
The scared-stiff Obama dictatorship feared Trump. The lawless Obama had plenty to hide. They were counting on Hillary to sweep it all under the rug. Obama ordered (A) the entire US intel apparat (created to protect American safety and security), and, (B) suck-up Eric Holder's DOJ, to spy on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition and the Trump presidency.
Explains the goofy OMG face on the goon-faced Halfrican when he met the impressive president-elect.
The dirt Hillary was supposed to sweep under the rug is now in the hands of the man the Halfrican tried to destroy.
"After all we did for her, that lousy Hillary lost. "How’m I gonna get out of the mess I’m in?"
"I know, we’ll invent Russian collusion..lie like crazy...setup Trump to take the blame.”
Squeal like a pig, Boy.
‘
They declined to prosecute Awan, and they had him on failing to disclose funds exceeding whatever (was it $10,000) when departure on International Flight.
They had something to hold over his head. They just weren’t interested.
‘
NYP.COM-——America left to face the nasty consequences of Robert Mueller’s actions
They’ve done it, they’ve finally done it!
The New York Times has picked up the scent of the scandalous spying on Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and is joining the hunt for the truth.
That’s how the president and some supporters reacted after the Times reported the FBI sent a “cloaked investigator” to a London meeting with Trump aide George Papadopoulos in September of 2016. The cheering section saw the story as evidence that, in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, the facts were forcing even the Gray Lady to abandon its notorious anti-Trump agenda.
If only that were true. In reality, we’ll see pigs fly before we see the Times fully committed to getting to the bottom of what Trump calls “Spygate.”
The paper is still defending the dirty tricks of Barack Obama’s White House and its own role in spreading the Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria. It’s a relationship neither side can quit.
Instead of proving the Times is coming to its senses, Friday’s article about the 2016 London meeting is better seen as spin designed to protect deep-state sources feeling the heat. Attorney General Bill Barr’s promise to investigate the investigators spooked them and they are using their favorite media handmaiden to fight back.
The result is a story that takes a “modified limited hangout” approach, where fragments are presented as revelations while the full picture remains artfully hidden.
Although the front-page story identifies the investigator as Azra Turk, nowhere do we learn what Turk’s real name is or whom she works for.
The story repeatedly suggests she is an FBI agent, but the fact that it doesn’t say so directly probably means she isn’t. Indeed, one of the story’s three reporters, Adam Goldman, told CNN they called Turk a government investigator “for a reason, and I’m going to leave it at that.”
That’s not journalism. That’s being a deep-state errand boy.
Naturally, all sources are anonymous, identified generally as “people familiar with the operation.” My guess is they include Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other dirty cops worried they are in Barr’s crosshairs.
They should worry, especially about Barr’s probe into leaks. There is no question that FBI officials were among the same reporters’ sources all along as the Times painted Trump as a Russian agent.
Maybe true, but the good Lord is known for allowing evil to destroy evil.
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.