The starkly different outcomes from Strzok’s interviews — a felony charge against Flynn and a free pass to Mills and Abedin — are sure to raise questions from Republicans about double-standards in the FBI’s two most prominent political investigations....
Strzok was also a prominent part of the Clinton investigation, so much so that he conducted all of the most significant interviews in the case....
५ डिसेंबर, २०१७
"Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements, which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok."
The Daily Caller spells out what is hard to see as anything other than political bias.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
PB is a step back from PC. PS, progress.
The fix was in. Cheryl Mills was a witness but allowed to sit in on Hillary;s "interview" as her lawyer,
Ann, you need a new hosting service.
The FBI can make its budget by selling kneepads embroidered with its once-proud crest.
35,000 FBI employees, and the same guy is doing all the politically important stuff.
How hard did Mueller try to cover up his anti-Trump emails?
Consortium News has published an artice by Robert Parry titled The Scalp-Taking of Gen. Flynn", which includes the following passages.
-----
.... National Security Adviser Flynn was .... being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.
For Americans who worry about how the pervasive surveillance powers of the U.S. government could be put to use criminalizing otherwise constitutionally protected speech and political associations, Flynn’s prosecution represents a troubling precedent. ...
He was, in a sense, a marked man the moment he accepted the job of national security adviser. ... Just four days into the Trump presidency, an Obama holdover, then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates, primed the Flynn perjury trap by coming up with a novel legal theory that Flynn – although the national security adviser-designate at the time of his late December phone calls with Kislyak – was violating the 1799 Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with U.S. foreign policy.
But that law – passed during President John Adams’s administration in the era of the Alien and Sedition Acts – was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations ...
But Yates extrapolated from her unusual Logan Act theory to speculate that since Flynn’s publicly known explanation of the conversation with Kislyak deviated somewhat from the transcript of the intercepts, Flynn might be vulnerable to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL. ...
Yates’s legal theorizing was so elastic and speculative that it could be used to justify subjecting almost anyone to FBI interrogation with the knowledge that their imperfect memories would guarantee the grounds for prosecution based on NSA intercepts of their communications.
Basically, the Obama holdovers concocted a preposterous legal theory to do whatever they could to sabotage the Trump administration, which they held in fulsome disdain.
At the time of Flynn’s interrogation, the Justice Department was under the control of Yates and the FBI was still under President Obama’s FBI Director James Comey, another official hostile to the Trump administration ...
While Flynn’s humiliation has brought some palpable joy to the anti-Trump “Resistance” – one more Trump aide being taken down amid renewed hope that this investigation will somehow lead to Trump’s resignation or impeachment – many of the same people would be howling about trampled civil liberties if a Republican bureaucracy were playing this game on a Democratic president and his staff. ....
What I have heard from many Hillary Clinton supporters in recent months is that they don’t care about the unfairness of the Russia-gate process or the dangerous precedents that such politicized prosecutions might set. They simply view Trump as such a danger that he must be destroyed at whatever the cost.
Yet, besides the collateral damage inflicted on mid-level government officials such as retired Lt. Gen. Flynn facing personal destruction at the hands of federal prosecutors with unlimited budgets, there is this deepening pattern of using criminal law to settle political differences, a process more common in authoritarian states.
As much as the Russia-gate enthusiasts talk about how they are upholding “the rule of law,” there is the troubling appearance that the law is simply being used to collect the scalps of political enemies.
-----
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/01/the-scalp-taking-of-gen-flynn/
As I've been saying for years, the law is an illusion.
It's all about power. If you have it you can rationalize anything.
If you haven't you can cry law all you like, it will do you no good.
In the case of the FBI, and every other such institution with great power, it will do as it pleases, always.
Unless it is credibly threatened, a balance of terror established.
The law can rationalize that too.
Mueller and his minions are about as credible as the media they leak to.
Strzok is a factotum (look it up) for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe is the problem. Director Wray needs to demote McCabe's ass to the FBI HR department too.
They are mischievous troublemakers loyal to the Holder/Lynch DOJ.
The outcome of the Mueller mess will not be pretty.
This investigation is corrupt to the core. Sessions needs to clean house. If not, Trump needs to fire Sessions and appoint Attila the Hun in his stead. The investigation needs to be stopped and the investigators need to be investigated.
If Mueller goes forward unimpeded and Trump is bagged, a legitimate election will be overturned for a process crime. The citizenry will be in a not-so mild uproar.
He's the fixer. Mueller knew or should have known. Mueller has done nothing about the leaks, each of which was a felony. He must resign. A replacement must clean house, punish the leakers, clear out any more biased compromised agents, including the Hillary donors. Otherwise no credibility.
This is the result of not having a free and unbiased media.
Strzok interviewed Hillary about the emails about 2 days before Comey let her off the hook.
None of this surprises me, I literally said "Well, of course. Obviously." when I read about all this. I just assumed that the upper echelons of the Obama era FBI was (is still?) peopled with complete reprobates who couldn't care less about things like rule of law and respect nothing but power. Although they do care about their own reputations. For example, I suspect Mueller is quite vain.
Ralph L said...
Strzok interviewed Hillary about the emails about 2 days before Comey let her off the hook.
But after he edited the Comey memo to let Clinton off the hook.
I am shocked!
Doesn't this story give Trump the excuse/reason he needs to pardon Flynn?
Robert "The FBI-Whitewasher" Mueller has three major goals:
1) White-wash the FBI.
2) White-wash his BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker"
3) Convict a scapegoat (someone like Scooter Libby) in order to make the public think that the FBI's investigations of RussiaGate have been valid.
Anything else that Mueller might accomplish is just gravy for him.
========
Since the recent anniversary of the JFK assassination, I have been reading about District Attorney Jim Garrison's disgraceful investigation.
Mueller's "investigation" is just as disgraceful as Garrison's was.
Mueller is disgracing this investigation and is disgracing himself and is disgracing the FBI.
The FBI's reputation will be justly ruined for many years to come.
Mueller is fighting a losing cause. He has very few cards to play. It is frustrating how slowly the deep state background facts come out, but they are coming out one by one. Some day we will even know what the Comey crew told the FISA court in order to get permission for spying and unmasking.
And the public is not fooled by the FBI coverups. Liberals/Progressives may believe that crimes were committed and that Trump will be impeached, but the general public is getting a clear picture of how corrupt Washington is.
"double-standards in the FBI’ If progs didn't have double standards etc. etc.
What I have heard from many Hillary Clinton supporters in recent months is that they don’t care about the unfairness of the Russia-gate process or the dangerous precedents that such politicized prosecutions might set. They simply view Trump as such a danger that he must be destroyed at whatever the cost.
They are going to fail to get Trump, but will trash our Constitutional liberties in the process. Everything that ClintonWorld touches turns to shit.
The question to me is whether the Deep State can win this confrontation.
Trump is alone just as Perot would have been alone.
I've been reading "Grant," the Chernow biography and have been reading the section about he impeachment of Johnson.
The similarities are striking. The difference now is that the party of government is the bureaucracy. Elected officials are just ciphers.
They have little power. They have delegated governing to the bureaucracy and it will not give it back.
"How hard did Mueller try to cover up his anti-Trump emails?"
-- Illegally hard, given that the information was subpoenaed by Congress and the FBI resisted.
The aristocracy and it’s useful idiot voters were one election away from destroying the rule of law forever.
History is going to look back at the 2016 election as divine providence or as a significant black swan event that saved the rule of law.
"Doesn't this story give Trump the excuse/reason he needs to pardon Flynn?"
-- Even I'd accept that, and I'm still not sold that Libby should've been pardoned. Flynn is clearly a political target at this point.
"Sessions needs to clean house. If not, Trump needs to fire Sessions ..."
I was very disappointed when Trump nominated Sessions. I am still disappointed today, but for reasons 180-degrees from my initial concerns. I thought he'd be a desecrationless zealot. Turns out he's AWOL on nefarious activity in his own department.
They piss on our backs and call it rain. Then they ask earnestly what has us so mad that we would elect Trump. Of course they answer: racism!
Mueller is daring Trump to fire him. Mueller knows that having the media in his pocket is like having mastery of the sky in a war.
This shows the problem with not charging someone with the most serious readily provable offense rather than making a deal for a much lesser offense.
The FBI has taken out one president. Now it is trying for another.
SHOCKED> If this stuff keeps up, Sarah Hoyt will need massive plastic surgery to restore her normal face.
"Ann, you need a new hosting service."
She may have overstayed her welcome. And that goes for the rest of us too.
Take that, Mr Conflicting Edits!
"Ann, you need a new hosting service."
I'm hoping it will get better.
I'm thinking the problem is with Amazon, which has changed things recently.
Could it be that my archive is just too big? I don't see how the size of the archive would affect the new things that are going up. Anyone who knows about computers who can offer some insight?
As for switching services, I've known for years that this blog is too be to extract from Blogger, so to move would be to start anew. That would be an immense problem for me, psychologically.
But the slowness of things here right now is a constant frustration for me. If you think it's bothersome, think about how it feels to me. Part of how it feels to me is that I'm always worrying about how it feels to you. I doubt if you spend time thinking about what my experience is. You're probably just thinking why doesn't Althouse make this thing work for me.
Trump should not fire Mueller. Wray, though, should fire McCabe and Strzok.
Also, Sessions should fire himself - for being ineffectual.
Could you explain that, readering?
Althouse said..."I doubt if you spend time thinking about what my experience."
You don't give us enough credit. I was wondering exactly that. (now, let's see if I can get this posted....)
I was thinking it probably keeps the number of comments down as the delays and 502s discourage commenters.
Maybe that's a plus.
“As much as the Russia-gate enthusiasts talk about how they are upholding “the rule of law,” there is the troubling appearance that the law is simply being used to collect the scalps of political enemies.”
They don’t get to decide what the Rule of Law requires, esp when it means bringing down a duly elected President, solely because he stole the coronation from their candidate, Crooked Hillary. Morally, and Constitutionally, the only ones who get to make that determination are the President and the Supreme Court. And maybe Congress - Articles I, II, and III of our Constitution. The permanent bureaucracy is not mentioned, except to the extent that they are part of the President’s Article II First Clause Executive Power. They owe the entirety of their power to that, and whatever moral power they might have in their jobs, and, thus to the duly elected, sitting, President. We are a Constitutional Republic with the power of government coming solely from the consent of the governed. Thus, deciding to decide to use their “rule of law” selectively, as we see, here, is illegal, unconstitutional, and highly immoral.
I was going to email you about the conflicting edits, but figured you'd know.
Maybe it won't last. We'll see.
As for the topic at hand, I see very little in my FB feed now about Trump, or the FBI, or impeachment. There was a lot at the end of last week, courtesy of Mr. Ross. Now, the subject of Strzok is met with a yawn.
Thanks, Original Mike.
TiV: From news reports it appears that Mueller could have charged Flynn with a lot more than one count of lying to the FBI. By limiting his indictment to that count for purposes of cooperation it makes it seem that Flynn's position is equivalent to that of others who appear to have been untruthful in interviews with the FBI. (Which is probably numbers in the tens of thousands.)
Strzok who:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/938125657674002432?p=v
www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-york-times-forced-to-heavily-amend-another-supposed-kt-mcfarland-scoop/article/2642586
Fake news all around:
dailycaller.com/2017/12/05/mueller-spent-3-2-million-in-first-four-months-of-russia-probe
Its exoensi e tie keep thus sham up.
I don't see how the size of the archive would affect the new things that are going up. Anyone who knows about computers who can offer some insight?
I suppose it depends on the database manager that blogger is using. I might expect a problem is you get up to 65536 posts (2^16), but you've got about 10-15K to go, if my quick math is right.
*if* you get, not *is* you get
As many point out, it is interesting that the institution that appears to be suffering the most right now from the Russian Collusion investigation is the FBI. The question is: when will Trump clean house there? The way things are going Congress is going to demand reforms at the FBI and, if Rosenstein continues to stonewall, reforms at the DOJ. If Rosenstein is fired, or removed from the investigation, who will protect Mueller?
Ann, this problem at Blogger is very recent. Do they have a reason? "Upgrade" or something. Tough to stay in business providing lousy service. I imagine if Blogger continues to underperform you will be hearing from someone more than happy to transfer your archives. Continued poor performance reflects badly on you and you should not tolerate it.
@MadisonMan, whatever the database is, I tend to doubt it uses 16 bit integers for the post count. Assuming the archive size is at fault, it'd be more likely something to do with exceeding some maximum cache size or whatever. But I suspect it ain't that either. But without knowing more I'm just straight up bullshitting.
My growing fear is with the complexity of this situation. It can't be explained in 15 seconds, the attention span of the average voter. The complexity allows Trump haters to obfuscate, misdirect, misrepresent, distort and outright lie. Brian Ross is the most recent example.
I'm also concerned with the GOP response. The GOP doesn't do crisp, coordinated and clarifying talking points well under the best of conditions. In this case the GOP is split into a few hardy souls who support Trump and the GOPe/RINO's who hate Trump. Trump can expect little help from his own side.
Thank goodness for Twitter...
By limiting his indictment to that count for purposes of cooperation it makes it seem that Flynn's position is equivalent to that of others who appear to have been untruthful in interviews with the FBI.
LOL! It doesn't matter that Hillary lied to the FBI, that's what you get from this? The FBI was all on the up and up, even though this partisan hack working at the FBI changed the wording from "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness" to get Hillary out of legal jeopardy, even thought the only difference between the two is one is mentioned in the law, and the other isn't?
How do you manage to laser focus on such a tiny point without even considering the larger issues surrounding the whole mess?
You could start a new blog and keep this one as an archive with comments turned off.
I assume you should be able to search it as you like doing, and post excerpts, or maybe even links.
Anybody got the scoop on the FBI attorney good time girl mattress back working for McCabe, who got let go by Mueller and mounted by Strzok? Wonder if Strzok working at the FBI HR is giving advice to employees how to bang the help. The man is a legend.
It seems like if you gave somebody, like Cheryl Mills, who was the same Cheryl Mills who cleaned out Vince Foster's office before investigators got there, the one who had proven her loyalty over decades, if you gave her immunity, that lying should somehow revoke that immunity.
In normal world. But not in liberal out to get Trump at any price to our democracy world.
Who, honestly, is shocked by this?
It's almost like the nearly-unaccountable offices of the State are peopled by partisans and ideological enemies of the Right/conservatives/center-right of the country, huh? Whoever could have guessed that? Almost like there's a "swamp" or a "Deep State" at work, isn't it?
Cast your mind back to when serious smart person--and "real conservative" Bill Kristol said he didn't believe a "Deep State" existed but that if it did he certainly preferred the deep state to the Trump State. Imagine how many "real conservatives" he speaks for!
The Left hates you and wants you to be destroyed. That there are many, many members of the federal government that are strongly Left should surprise no one, and is yet another reason to fight as hard as we can to shrink the size and the scope of the federal government. If it takes a Trump to get that done, then so be it.
For me the news, way back when, that Mills and Abedein and H. Clinton were interviewed (on a topic that could involve several different federal crimes) without being under oath and without having the interview itself recorded was enough to understand that the fix was in.
I haven't seen any decent explanation of that. I haven't seen anyone explain why immunity would be preemtively granted and maintained even when the answers/info given was known--proven--to be false. Those people lied to the FBI and no one in the FBI nor the DOJ seemed to care, at all.
Now, you know, if you or I lie to the FBI it's kind of a big deal. They count on it being a big deal, in fact, and work very hard to get you to lie as a tool to then "own" you. They get to operate under a set of legal circumstances that consider an untruthful answer to a question designed to elicit an untruthful answer (a question to which they already know the correct answer, in fact) as "obstruction of justice." That's so even though your untruth in that case did not obstruct anything! Ask Scooter Libby if you don't believe me.
Anyway actual federal investigations are always tricky precisely because of that really terrible power.
When federal officials go out of their way to NOT use any part of that power it's pretty solid proof that they're not doing an actual investigation and/or don't really want to find out the truth.
Again: this was obvious way back then. The people who defended the FBI & Comey knowing what a sham the "investigation" was were either idiots or shills themselves.
The Clinton investigation did not follow normal procedures in many respects.
There should be an inquiry.
Personally, I would attribute the conflicting edits to someone inside Google; the problems are, imo, intentional. Or shear negligence.
Contact them, ask what's going on.
Meanwhile, in the news:
"White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Tuesday disputed reports that special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed President Trump’s bank records.
“We confirmed that the news reports [that] the special counsel had subpoenaed financial records related to the president are completely false,” Sanders said during the daily press briefing.
“No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources. I think this is another example of the media going too far and too fast and we don't see it going in that direction," she said.
Citing an anonymous and unidentified official, Reuters reported earlier Tuesday that Mueller’s team had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, where Trump is believed to have a line of credit and to have conducted tens of millions of dollars in transactions."
A second Mueller staff member was compromised by Trump hate. Shut it down.
“No subpoena has been issued or received. We have confirmed this with the bank and other sources. I think this is another example of the media going too far and too fast and we don't see it going in that direction," she said.
I thought that was a bridge too far. Mueller would be making it obvious that he was doubling down and shifting from an investigation of Russian meddling (by Trump - since Clinton meddling is apparently just fine) into an impeachment witch hunt, which is well outside his mandate. Mueller may be Deep State, bu he isn’t stupid. That would be going to war with his boss, and likely wouldn’t end well for him. So far, as long as it hasn’t gotten personal, Trump seems content to mostly let the investigation play out. But going after him, or his family (including Kushner) would be personal, and, I think, guaranteed of a quick brutal response. If the Bank subpoena story had been true, I figured that Mueller was admitting that he couldn’t find anything against trump, and wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Luckily, he doesn’t seem to be that self destructive.
I haven't seen any decent explanation of that.
Comey explained it already. He said he trusted Hillary and didn't trust Trump. That's what he said.
"Comey explained it already. He said he trusted Hillary and didn't trust Trump. That's what he said."
Sheesh. Can you provide a link, Tim?
"James Comey said he was concerned that the president might, quote, "lie" about the nature of our meetings. So he was compelled to take these notes."
Of course there was never any concern that Hillary might lie about her meetings with the FBI. None whatsoever.
In Comeys defense, he also already knew what his investigation would turn up with Clinton as well as his conclusion. So, why take notes?
he also already knew what his investigation would turn up with Clinton as well as his conclusion. So, why take notes?
All taking notes could possibly have done is queered the conclusion they had already agreed upon.
What is somewhat amusing is Robert parts switch, remember he was one of the longest running exponents of the October surprise narrative as well as the CIA cocaine one which made it into 'kill the messenger' and this summers 'snowfall'
But without knowing more I'm just straight up bullshitting.
That's what I was doing too!
Where have we seen this before?
I know
"Chief Investigator in John Doe Has Recall Walker Sign in Yard, Blue Fist Union Icon in Window"
Even pre dawn raids are part of this wonderful abuse of power...
This fan fiction is getting ridiculous:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/05/russian-lawyer-who-met-don-jr-submits-senate-testimony-theres-just-one-problem
Fox News Tuesday night, Laura Ingraham reported that yet another one of Robert Mueller´s deputies in his Russia investigation is compromised due to her track record as a blatant partisan. Jeannie Rhee, who was hired by Mueller last summer to work on the probe, was the personal attorney of Ben Rhodes and also represented the Clinton Foundation,
They are who we thought they were!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा