Posted on 07/06/2018 6:32:35 AM PDT by markomalley
Multiple reviews of whether FBI agents’ political bias affected the Russia-Trump collusion case remain in their infancy, but investigators already have unearthed troubling internal communications long withheld from public view.
We already know from FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok’s now-infamous text messages with his fellow agent and reported lover, Lisa Page, that Strzok — the man driving that Russia collusion investigation — disdained Donald Trump and expressed willingness to use his law enforcement powers to “stop” the Republican from becoming president.
The question that lingers, unanswered: Did those sentiments affect official actions?
Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.
They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants, or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.
One of those figures was Carter Page, an academic and an energy consultant from New York; he was briefly a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the GOP nominee’s campaign and visited Moscow the summer before the election.
The memos show Strzok, FBI lawyer Page, and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Page’s travel to Moscow.
The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity, as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey, complaining about the “completely false” leak.
“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.
Within weeks, that “pretext” — often a synonym for an excuse — had been upsized to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant, giving the FBI the ability to use some of its most awesome powers to monitor Carter Page and his activities.
To date, the former Trump adviser has been accused of no wrongdoing despite being subjected to nearly a year of surveillance.
Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.
In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.
“Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election.
“At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him,” Strzok emailed Lisa Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.
Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”
“Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.
“Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Lisa Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”
Until all the interviews are completed by Congress and DOJ’s inspector general later this year, we won’t know why counterintelligence agents who normally take a methodical approach to investigation felt so much pressure days before the election on this case.
Were they concerned about losing a chance to gather evidence at a critical moment? Or maybe, as some Republicans long have suspected, they wanted to impact the election?
The agents got the Carter Page warrant in October and, within two weeks, Democrats in Congress such as then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and some media members were raising questions about the FBI withholding word of a probe that could hurt Trump. FBI agents monitored those reports, too.
The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.
“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Lisa Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.
“Andy didn’t get any others,” Lisa Page wrote back, apparently indicating then-Deputy Director McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”
“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.
It’s an extraordinary exchange, if for no other reason than this: The very day after Trump wins the presidency, some top FBI officials are involved in the sort of gum-shoeing normally reserved for field agents, and their goal is to find derogatory information about someone who had worked for the president-elect.
As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.
On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.
These and other documents are still being disseminated to various oversight bodies in Congress, and more revelations are certain to occur.
Yet, now, irrefutable proof exists that agents sought to create pressure to get “derogatory” information and a “pretext” to interview people close to a future president they didn’t like.
Clear evidence also exists that an investigation into still-unproven collusion between a foreign power and a U.S. presidential candidate was driven less by secret information from Moscow and more by politically tainted media leaks.
And that means the dots between expressions of political bias and official actions just got a little more connected.
Imagine where the Hillary probe would’ve gone if the FBI was as serious about her and what laws she broke as they were trying to trap Trump.
The key is that the sentiments and the "pressure" changed their behavior so as not to employ the regular order of investigations in many relevant ways. Defying the odds, those ways all trend in one direction and each one has a weighting factor and moment in normal practice to take a different course, both to avoid institutional bias and to conform with proper procedure. As the article noted the level of gum-shoeing is out of these executives' leagues. Such people's tendency is to overwhelm and "use a cannon to kill a mosquito" (as Confucius said). In doing so, they reveal the authority of their position.
I look forward to further revelation that the "pressure" came from the person already noted to be extremely and unusually interested in everything the CI unit was doing.
In the real world, there is a reason the president is not supposed to comment publicly on pending investigations and court cases (think Contreras, the FISA judge), so as not to skew their outcome. How much more that consideration applies when its effect will inherently apply institutionally connected "pressure" that may well have an impact on their professional careers and compensation!
Sign the petition:
Spread it around! When it hits 150, it gets moved to the main petition page. Then it will take off. Up to 106 now.
What a farking Dork!!!
Yeppers advance_copy . . . Yeppers!!!
Yeah sure . . . crickets!!!
Looks like a lot of collusion between scumbags.
They should all be stoned to death.
And dont forget the Halfrican at the top of this dung heap, employing Third world tactics against those who stood
in the way of his grab for absolute power. Obummer is little more than a tinpot dictator directing police state activities.
-----------------------------------------
Still, it's a good feeling that despite the disturbing activities, mounted solely on her behalf,
Hillary was such a bad candidate, she could not pull out a win.
Trump cannot do anything while “Russia Gate” is being investigated. It would almost certainly lead to impeachment, however unjustified. Mueller has nothing, and is delaying closing up shop because, hopefully, the hammer is coming down on DOJ and FBI once Trrump is free to act.
Thanks for sharing your views/thoughts. Its certainly a vexing and complex problem for Trump.
With respect to the upcoming elections, I don’t see them significantly altering the political balance, even if Republicans hold their “majorities”. So, winning will probably not give Trump much additional power in my opinion. And there is always the risk that if the Dems should take back the House then all the investigations would be shut down, not to mention the political roadblocks this would create for Trump.
Again, I appreciate Trump’s political situation and the importance of these elections, but I just don’t see it as a game changer unless Republicans manage to win big, which at this point seems unlikely.
Termites have infested the house and are weakening the structure. Its time to bring in the exterminator before its too late and the home crumbles.
“I don’t see them significantly altering the political balance”
But what you say here is the key, all the Republicans have to do is lose no more than a handful in the House (retaining the majority) and taking a couple of additional seats in the Senate for it to be a major victory that will accrue solely to Trump. His power politically will grow exponentially - particularly within his own party, where he currently has tepid (at best) support. The expectation has been that the election would be a blood bath for Republicans, similar to the 1982 midterms in the House (that expectation might be mostly Democrat propaganda but it’s there nonetheless). If Trump gains in the Senate and comes close to breaking even in the House, that will have an outsized impact on his influence in D:C. He sees this, it’s why he’s spending so much time campaigning this summer.
Mueller has nothing, and is delaying closing up shop
***************
Mueller dosesn’t have anything on Trump but that won’t stop him from fabricating an obstruction of justice charge against him. Mueller’s has unlimited resources, no limits on time, and is empowered to use extreme tactics to persecute his targets.
But his “mission” has nothing to do with justice. Its all a political witch hunt and a kangaroo court being sponsored by Trump’s enemies. They put Mueller there and fully expect him to produce “findings” that create political and/or legal headwinds for Trump.
Mueller is going to drag this thing out into the Fall elections at a minimum. Further, if the Republicans remain in control of the House and Senate there’s no telling how long Mueller’s quest will go on. It all about damaging Trump so Mueller has no intention of closing up shop anytime soon.
Your scenario is plausible but I’m not quite as optimistic as you are.
That said, GOP fortunes do seem to have improved lately. Trump has done a great job with the economy and that alone SHOULD give the GOP a tailwind going into the elections.
But...as the old adage goes, what can go wrong will go wrong. And needless to say, the Republicans have a remarkable “ability” and well established track record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If it can be screwed up, they will find a way.
Deadlines don't matter to the DOJ. The DOJ thinks it's
above the law. The wimpy House of Reps will just give them
another "deadline", then another, then another....then another.
And it looks like ... RICHARD BECKLER IS NOW DEAD- DIED IN AUGUST 2017 not quite year after the f up at the GSA.
Richard Beckler was appointed by Trump in May 2017 and by August he was hospitalized, nd by September he has died of pancreatic cancer.
Talk about a short appointment.
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.