December 23, 2017

"Was the Steele Dossier the FBI’s ‘Insurance Policy’?"

Andrew McCarthy goes into great depth at The National Review.

191 comments:

cubanbob said...

Strangest insurance policy I have ever seen; looks more like a death warrant.

Kevin said...

These questions have been asked for a year. If the answer was "no", they could have been quickly answered long ago.

The answer is "yes", and they have been furiously working to find something big on Trump that lets these acts seem warranted all along.

But they have come up with nothing. The cards have all been dealt, the bets have all been made, and it's time to figure out who wins the hand and who's been bluffing all along.

The question is why Trump didn't force the information out long ago. I'm beginning to suspect he found it more valuable to let them play around for a bit to see who was involved and how deeply.

Sometimes you stay in the game to better study your opponent.

Tim at large said...

Kevin, we are dealing with people who believe a four flush is a winning hand.

Kevin said...

In parallel, James Clapper has become unhinged.

Clapper: Donald Trump a 'Recruited Asset' of Vladimir Putin

A year later, with no published evidence of "collusion", Clapper still believes what he believes without a shred of evidence to back it up.

This man was running our intelligence agencies under Obama.

mockturtle said...

I found this very interesting:
Second: In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post asserted that “an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence of a crime.” That is not accurate. Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1) applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine anti-American activities." [my bold type]

Did the WaPo know they were mistaken regarding the FISA requirements but chose to deliberately mislead their readers?

cubanbob said...

I still waiting to see how and with what the "collusion" was supposed to sink Hillary. On the other hand I see a lot of evidence of collusion by the media with the DNC/Clinton campaign and now the FBI and the DoJ to help Clinton win the election and keep Clinton and others from going to jail.

Michael K said...

"there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign "

This is going to get very interesting.

Original Mike said...

The reason James Baker was relieved of his responsibilities.

Drago said...

Kevin: "In parallel, James Clapper has become unhinged"

Clapper (lied under oath to Congress), Brennan (commie in the 1970's if you can believe it), and Comey the Illegal Leaker are all "unhinged"...but for a reason.

Those 3, along with the "HQ Special"/"Insurance Policy" Team at the FBI and Sally Yates/Ohr (my wife does oppo research for dems!) are clearly the leaders of a Dirty Trick/Political Operation Hit against a domestic political opponent.

Just as the dems did in Wisconsin and the rest of the dems were/are doing across the government even now.

The lefties really believed that the US had reached the "3rd world immigration/replace the American electorate" tipping point and the republicans would never again win an election and so they could do whatever they wanted knowing that 95% of the media and all of the lifelong republicans were in their pockets.

Hillary/obama and gang really thought it was safe to go full Chavez/Maduro.

And they still do.

Clapper/Brennan/Comey are making themselves conspicuous because how can they not? This is a death match and they have to go all in.

rcocean said...

Looks like firing Comey was the smartest thing Trump has done so far.

Also, we need a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.

Francisco D said...

Here's another cut and paste from Andrew McCarthy for Inga. At one point, he was her favorite conservative because she never really read his ongoing work. She just used the grossly out of context DNC talking points she was given.

"At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly before Steele’s reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to investigators. "

Read the article Ann linked to. There is a lot more.

rcocean said...

As McCarthy points out several times - but bears repeating - all these people were 99% sure that Hillary! was going to win and none of this would EVER see the light of day.

Tim at large said...

Did Putin direct $145 million to Trump as part of that recruitment?

Original Mike said...

Blogger rcocean said..."Looks like firing Comey was the smartest thing Trump has done so far. Also, we need a special counsel to investigate the special counsel."

"We're going to need some more FBI guys"

Kevin said...

Clapper/Brennan/Comey are making themselves conspicuous because how can they not? This is a death match and they have to go all in.

Firing Comey and letting Mueller - if he really was as untrained as people tried to make him out to be - discover and deliver the truth, was central to the housecleaning which would follow.

Trump couldn't do that as a new President. The country didn't yet know the depths of the rot.

Trump would know. He'd know the minute his security briefing included the ridiculous dossier. There was only one reason to show that to him then, and that was to keep Trump from thinking they were hiding it. Instead they showed it to him so they could actively deny any importance before he found out about it.

"Now listen, whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting...he's the traitor. Don't forget that." -- Don Corleone

David Begley said...

Bigger question. Was Point Shaver Strzok paid in bitcoin by the Clinton campaign to use the Steele Dossier to dupe a federal judge and get spying warrants on the Trump campaign?

Follow the bitcoin.

http://21stcenturywisdom.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/point-shaver-strzok-and-the-untouchables/

Dennis P. said...

It's pretty clear at this point that the FBI, as with the IRS previously, self-weaponized under Obama to be used against the Right and in defense of Hillary Cinton.

The only reason that we are hearing about this is that, inexplicably to them, Trump somehow managed to pull it off.

I,for one, am interested to see how far down the rot goes.

Also, Foggy Bottom is in dire need of clearing out of officials whose allegiance is to some sort of Internationalist agenda rather than the needs of the United States.

I don't think Tillerson is capable of this, but I bet Nikki Haley would do a damn fine job if it.

Kevin said...

Read the article Ann linked to. There is a lot more.

But the polls! The polls about an election that won't happen for a year look so favorable!

Big Mike said...

If Trump does nothing more than depoliticize the DoJ and FBI, to the point where they are no longer making up crimes out of thin, wet tissue paper (Ted Stevens) and treating everyone equally before the law (Hillary Clinton) he deserves a place among the ten best presidents.

An awful lot of people who held senior positions in DoJ during the Obama Administration belong in the federal penitentiary. The press will try to spin it as "politicizing" vice depoliticizing and as one administration delivering revenge against their predecessors. But this country was founded on equality before the law, and needs to return to that principle.

Tim at large said...

The irony is that the best insurance against Trump would have been to follow the law and indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, and clear the way for any other Democrat.

Michael K said...

I agree that Clapper, et al are in desperate straits. They have to try to reverse the ocean liner that is bearing down on Hillary and Obama.

Watergate was a tempest in a teapot compared to this.

Where is Fred Thompson when you need him?

Michael K said...

The irony is that the best insurance against Trump would have been to follow the law and indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, and clear the way for any other Democrat.

Yes, but you might as well have tried to turn the Titanic.

Drago said...

Kevin: "There was only one reason to show that to him then, and that was to keep Trump from thinking they were hiding it. Instead they showed it to him so they could actively deny any importance before he found out about it."

Actually, showing this nonsense document to Trump accomplished several things:
1) As we saw in real time, the FBI immediately leaked the fact that they briefed Trump on this so it could be leaked immediately to CNN which then directed everyone to go to Buzzfeed to read the whole opposition research document.

In that way the lefties were finally able to "officially" introduce this BS into the media "mainstream", which was intended to inflate the firestorm the lefties were creating to get rid of Trump.

2) It was also to get ahead of the curve and create in the public's mind the idea that this complete BS research was completely legitimate before we were able to dig more deeply into it and find out all things we are finding out now.

And isn't it interesting how UNINTERESTED the entire MSM is about this story?........

As Glenn Reynolds says, just think of them as democrat operatives and it all makes sense.

Kevin said...

The irony is that the best insurance against Trump would have been to follow the law and indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, and clear the way for any other Democrat.

They wanted to. they really wanted to. It was just this war and that lying son of a bitch Trump!

n.n said...

The FBI, press, Clinton, Obama, ... Each of them needed a plausible premise and cover-up to spy on the Republican Party. This is what Watergate was supposed to be.

Drago said...

The other thing I can guarantee is that every bit of information collected by Muellers lefty goons is already sitting comfortably in democrat party opposition research files for 2020.

Every single bit.

Think of Mueller as a Craig Livingstone on steroids.

Jersey Fled said...

Still waiting for the shoe to drop about who used Samantha Powers name to request those FISA warrants.

Someone thought they were being oh so clever.

Unknown said...

The ramifications of an ACTUAL corrupt fbi is pretty staggering. Hopefully sessions will perp walk these SOBs. I would start by squeezing the mistresses children.

Ray said...

I’m surprised that Trump is doing so well against the Russia narrative.

He’s made the proponents look like fools and politically biased.

Amazing. Not what I expected.

Big Mike said...

@Jersey, you are sure it wasn’t Samantha herself? If you can see a reason to believe anything said by any member of the previous administration’s inner circle please let me know.

The Drill SGT said...

Rule 1 at the FBI: Don't embarrass the FBI

Drago said...

Ray: "He’s made the proponents look like fools and politically biased."

Trump is helped immensely in that these politically appointed hacks are unethical fools and massively politically biased.

They are where they are because they have connections as extreme loyal leftist/democrats, not because they rose through the ranks on the basis of performance.

Tim at large said...

If you can see a reason to believe anything said by any member of the previous administration’s inner circle please let me know.

Well, if she felt compelled to lie about it under oath, then that takes this in a whole other direction.

Yancey Ward said...

JerseyFled,

She didn't request FISA warrants- according to Powers, someone used her credentials to request unmasking of American citizens caught by surveillance of foreigners' communications.

I actually believe her up to a point- someone else did it- what I don't believe is she doesn't know who that someone is.

Mac McConnell said...

Trump and Sessions were on to Comey and Team Hillary FBI. There was a reason Comey was fired while he was out of town on the West Coast. Remember Trump hinting that he might have recordings of Comey? DOJ had sent "cleaners" to Comey's office to suck up all it's contents at the moment Comey was fired.

On wonders if the is a secret Grand Jury impounded somewhere to start indicting corupt members of the DOJ and FBI. One can only hope.

Bay Area Guy said...

Andrew McCarthy is a national treasure. So, is Alan Dershowitz for that matter.

The "Defend Hillary" Squad was formed to rebut the dogged (and effective) political attacks by Trump on Hillary's E-mail shenanigans. To play defense, they soft-pedaled and slow-walked the FBI investigation into Hillary's misconduct. Comey got cold feet, decided to depart from standard FBI practice by "trashing" Hillary while exonerating her. He felt he had to do "something" to retain a shred of integrity after the AG Lynch-Bill Clinton Tarmac meeting was discovered.

Although Hillary was white-washed legally, Comey inadvertently tarred her politically, thus prompting the "Defend Hillary" Squad to take the ball, go on offense to become the "Get Trump" Squad, just in case Trump won.

In the aftermath of Trump's win, Comey was stunned that his press conference helped sink Hillary, so he started leaking to get a Special Prosecutor appointed, i.e., get members of the "Get Trump" squad appointed to Mueller's team to take Trump down.

Mueller was and is a good guy. But, his investigation is hopelessly screwed up.







EDH said...

How does Mueller come out of this not seeming hopelessly obtuse?

Yancey Ward said...

McCarthy's piece is very good- it lays out a lot of information in a chronological order that makes it comprehensible. I think just based on the non-answers a lot of FBI and DoJ figures have given about the dossier and its relationship to the FISA applications is pretty conclusive evidence it was the basis for the wiretapping of Page and probably other officials connected to the Trump Campaign- really, if it wasn't the basis for the warrant applications, one could just state that fact flat out and not reveal any so-called "sensitive intelligence gathering methods". Equivocating about whether or not it was the basis is the confirmation that it was.

And in McCarthy's piece, you can see him slowly coming around to what I think is the proper viewing of this entire episode, though he still isn't quite there. The people involved and their various connections lead almost directly to pretty obvious theory- that Christopher Steele did not compile the dossier. His role was as a cut out between Fusion GPS and the FBI/DoJ. The Clinton Campaign deliberately put layers of cutouts between itself and this FBI investigation into Russian Collusion- first the DNC to the law firm, the law firm to Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS to Christopher Steele, and finally Christopher Steele to the FBI. I think the dossier was prepared before Steele was ever hired.

One thing that people seem to be forgetting here is that many news organizations claimed that they had this dossier months before the election, but could verify none of it. On this, I believe them. As critical as I am of the media, they judged the impact this would have had on the election correctly- like James Comey described it earlier this year, the dossier is salacious and unverified, and the media running with it in the months before the election would have backfired against Clinton, and her supporters in the media knew it, too. Indeed, the one thing they were probably able to confirm is that Clinton paid for it, and this scared them away.

Tim at large said...

Teapot Dome was a tempest in a teapot compared to this stuff.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Democrat corruption infests everything it touches. The swamp is thick and deep.

Still waiting for Trump to drain it as promised.



If Strozk, McCabe and Ohr cannot be fired - FOR STARTERS, we really do live in a corrupt banana republic.

tcrosse said...

Money talks, Hillary walks.

buwaya said...

This is interesting to those aficionados who follow these things, but it is not likely to be politically significant.
There will eventually be some fascinating books on the subject.
I don't think that "the swamp" will be drained through these means, and I don't think this stuff helps.
It should, but it won't.
All this is about tactics, not strategy.

The swamp exists because it serves powerful interests. It will survive all attacks as long as those interests exist, or as long as those interests find the swamp useful.

When you start seeing billionaires going to prison, and their fortunes sequestered (a la Saudi Arabia), then you can give the swamp the last rites.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

McCabe is the acting FBI director - and he's a corrupt democrat hack.

If Trump can fire Comey - he can fire McCabe.


from link

Strzok’s text about the meeting in McCabe’s office is dated August 16, 2016. As we’ll see, the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump’s bid: “There’s no way he gets elected.” Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI “can’t take that risk.” He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to undermine Trump’s candidacy: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”



Tim at large said...

I think the dossier was prepared before Steele was ever hired.

I don’t see how you got to that conclusion, even if it is “pretty obvious” to you. What seems obvious to me is that McCarthy is right, that HRC and the DNC paid Steele, a foreign national, in contravention of election law in multiple ways,to go out and collect “information” which was more likely disinformation, from spies loyal to Putin.

Francisco D said...

Sessions needs to show some balls and appoint a special counsel to investigate collusion between the DOJ, FBI and DNC.

I was initially skeptical of the "slow moving coup" idea. It is beginning to make sense.

If true, it is the greatest threat to our democracy in my life time.

Chuck said...


The Althouse Blog... selectively rediscovers The National Review.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Disagree- This stuff matters more than anything. This is the frigging FBI.

The Strozk texts should be the story OF THE YEAR. The only reason it isn't is because the media is in the tank for one political party. The media AGREE with the text, and so therefore, IT'S ALL COOL.

If the parties were swapped and Strozk were an (R) - this would be the biggest deal. bigger than Watergate.

Add to it the fact that it was Strozk who changed the words around so that Hillary got away with her Private Server for International Cash schemes.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Sessions needs to show some balls and appoint a special counsel to investigate collusion between the DOJ, FBI and DNC.



Yes. Sessions is worthless. He's too busy going after pot.

buwaya said...

The National Review is gradually coming to grips with reality.
Not that it matters.

Pinandpuller said...

No other president has had a special prosecutor seated right after being elected, correct? If they don't take him out he will probably cruise to reelection.

Francisco D said...

Chuck,

You are seeing how the National Review is coming around and changing its Never Trump stance because of the conservative achievements he has (surprisingly) accomplished.

Oh. I forgot. You see nothing, nothing, as Sgt Schultz would say.

Pinandpuller said...

Just think about Steele floating a dossier about Obama's Muslim connections.

buwaya said...

This stuff does not matter more than anything, because all it does is open a little window into what the FBI actually is.
It's been that, for how long?

It's like a sample out of your house framing finding it's got a terminal case of termites.
But this was known long ago to anyone who bothered knocking on the wood.

What effect does this level of knowing have, if all you now know is what's always been?

And, note, the most important thing is what the public thinks.
The critical thing is that it's NOT a big story.
It should be, but it isn't.
The public does not know and can't know because they aren't told and can't follow this.

What Trump has not done is go after the media owners that control this system.
That would be a strategic move.

Yancey Ward said...

Shorter version of Chuck:

"Don't believe a word McCarthy writes."

Why can't you just write that out for yourself, Chuck?

madAsHell said...

Strangest insurance policy I have ever seen; looks more like a death warrant.

Agreed. This is looking less like a Trump investigation, and more like an investigation of the FBI.

Drago said...

"Accidental Leftist" and "Jen Rubin Republican" Chuck takes time out from selectively and studiously avoiding all criticisms of dems to assert others are being selective.

Anything to keep the focus off what the deep state dem partisans have been doing.

Once again fully aligning himself with the operational dem talking points of the day.

Unexpectedly.

Yancey Ward said...

Tim, I believe that because it does appear that Glenn Simpson's wife was caught bragging about how it was her husband that did the investigative work- not Steele. Someone captured screen images of her Facebook page doing this before she hastily took it down. This also aligns with the fact that Simpson and his wife have a long history writing about Paul Manafort that goes back over a decade. Their problem, though, was that they were working for the law firm that worked for Clinton- they needed a cut out, and Steele was a nearly ideal figure for this.

narciso said...

Much as was characterized about the company in the 70s about its operations in the 40s and 50s it want a rogue elephant, but an instrument of state power

Drago said...

If you think LLR Chuck is going to tolerate comments critical of lefty partisans violating rules to spy on domestic political opponents without a fight, well, you don't understand LLR Chuck at all.

This is beginning to look so bad for the dems that I fully expect Chuckie to lapse back into rumor-mongering about children. Again.

Drago said...

Yancey Ward: "Tim, I believe that because it does appear that Glenn Simpson's wife was caught bragging about how it was her husband that did the investigative work- not Steele."

I can't wait to see how Chuck and his operational lefty allies explain that one away.

Drago said...

Hinderaker has a nice addition to McCarthy's piece at Powerline re: the role of Brennan and Clapper at CIA/NSA: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/on-dnc-fbi-russia-collusion-the-cia-and-nsa-played-a-part-too.php

"Accidental Leftist" Chuck hardest hit. Again.

snip: "You could say these people are crazy, but a few short months ago they were in charge of the U.S. intelligence community. It seems clear that by the end of 2016 they were collaborating in the DNC/Clinton campaign/Steele/Fusion GPS/FBI/Russia effort to undermine the incoming Trump administration. An obvious question is, how far back did cooperation by CIA and NSA go? Did those agencies corruptly collaborate with Obama’s DOJ in spying on Trump and his associates during the campaign?

Based on what we already know, the DNC/Clinton campaign/Steele/Fusion GPS/Russia/FBI collusion looks like the biggest scandal in American political history. To the extent that the CIA and NSA were also involved, it can only get worse."

LLR Chuck is not going to like that one bit. I can't wait to hear LLR Chuck's rationale for why Hinderaker should not be listened to.

Of course, I don't have to wait for LLR Chuck to write anything to know what direction he will follow, I'll just go read the DNC website instead.

Tim at large said...

The Althouse Blog... selectively rediscovers The National Review.

Every word in National Review is the last word. We must accept every opinion expressed there as unquestionably correct, like a papal bull. This idea of picking and choosing... Why, it’s heresy! Worse: freethinkery!

buwaya said...

This is not going to have a significant effect unless the rather simple message goes out to the public that the FBI is fundamentally and irremediably corrupt. That is what will register. And, therefore, FBI delenda est.

Until then it is complex inside baseball.

National Review material in other words, interesting only to hobbyists and aficionados.

buwaya said...

And the CIA, NSA, and the rest of the alphabet soup of course is also entirely compromised as players in US domestic politics.
The strategic level of thinking is about institutions, not individuals.

Hyphenated American said...

The reason why leftie thugs are not yet fired from the FBI is that we need them there, so they could be compelled to testify under oath. If they refuse to testify and take the fifth, then thus could be quoted as a reason for their firing.

Drago said...

buwaya: "The strategic level of thinking is about institutions, not individuals"

Without the evidence that points to specific actions taken by significant numbers of individuals within the institutions your strategic level of thinking about institutions will not be enough.

You need both.

JaimeRoberto said...

Did Trump have some word of this during the campaign when we went of on how things are rigged?

Drago said...

And as night follows day, now that the evidence is leaking out about how politicized and compromised LLR Chuck's "magnificent" obama's FBI really is, here comes the articles from all the usual lefty/lifelong republican quarters that we should just let bygones be bygones and "move on"!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/us/politics/fbi-director-president-trump.html?mtrref=hotair.com&gwh=EF8CA2ED9937720ABCDFFF2ABB5346E4&gwt=pay

Lets not quibble about who killed who, we need a non-politicized FBI........now that Trump is President.

Expect lots of calls from the usual lifelong republicans backing up this entirely expected lefty gambit.

Drago said...

JaimeRoberto: "Did Trump have some word of this during the campaign when we went of on how things are rigged?"

I think not.

We all were aware the DNC was tilting the scales for Hillary and it was clear that Hillary's transgressions were being whitewashed by the FBI.

I don't think any of us dared dream the lefty/dem aligned deep staters would have gone so far off the deep end that they felt sufficiently confident to actually run a Hoax/Set up Intel Counter-Trump operation.

I don't think Trump knew it either. Trump would not have been so "conciliatory" towards obama during the Transition if he had.

And now there appears to be a credible case to be made that obama himself was involved more directly earlier than previously thought.

Dixie_Sugarbaker said...

Kevin: "There was only one reason to show that to him then, and that was to keep Trump from thinking they were hiding it. Instead they showed it to him so they could actively deny any importance before he found out about it."

I respectfully disagree. Clapper, McCabe, Page and Strzok actually believed what was in the dossier because their hatred and loathing of Trump enciuraged them to never question the veracity of the dossier. They showed it to Trump because they thought it was true and they could use it as leverage over Trump, to get him to do what they wanted. They have been in CYA mode since when Trump wasn't fazed by the dossier because he knew it was not true. I believe that is when the need for a special prosceucter was first broached internally within the FBI in order to cover their tracks.

Kevin said...

The Althouse Blog... selectively rediscovers The National Review.

To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg:

"It’s fine to disagree with this position from the pro- or anti-National Review camps. What is unfair is to claim that if you don’t fall in line with one team or another it must be because of corrupt motives, cowardice, or some other mental defect. Indeed, one could argue that it is much more difficult, costly, and risky to not get swept up in either movement."

StephenFearby said...

Another layer of interesting (and possibly even correct) conspiracy theory from Lee Smith:

'...In any case, the history of the “Steele dossier” doesn’t begin with Christopher Steele or Nellie Ohr in the summer of 2016; it begins with a story that Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal dated April 17, 2007. “How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington” details how prominent Republicans, including the 1996 Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole, opened doors in the American capital for Kremlin-affiliated oligarchs and other friends of Vladimir Putin. Among those friends of Putin was Viktor Yanukovich, who would become president of Ukraine in 2010. According to the article, one of Yanukovich’s wealthy patrons paid a political fixer named Paul Manafort to introduce Yanukovich to powerful Washington, D.C., figures, including former Vice President Dick Cheney. Manafort figures prominently throughout the piece.'



'...Simpson and Jacoby had ID’d Manafort as a world-class sleazeball and they were right. A slick Georgetown Law grad running in GOP circles since the Reagan campaign, Manafort used his talents and connections to get paid by some very bad people. I would only add here that, in my personal experience, journalists are not in the habit of forgetting major stories they’ve written, especially stories with a character like Manafort at the center.

So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson and Jacoby’s eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon.'

'...Perhaps it was this alignment of the stars that clinched the deal. According to an Oct. 24, 2017, letter from Perkins Coie, the firm hired Fusion GPS to continue its research in April, shortly after Manafort was hired by Trump.

Once you understand that Simpson knew exactly who Paul Manafort was, it’s impossible not to spot the former journalist’s creative wit sprinkled throughout the dossier, which uses the tantalizing figure of “PUTIN” to draw attention to corruption that Glenn Simpson knew was entirely real from his own reporting. “Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised (sic) kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in western media,” the dossier relates. “Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail.”

It’s as if Simpson has hung a “Kick Me” sign on Manafort to encourage some prosecutor to find the “documentary evidence/trail” that did in fact exist. Sure enough, Special Counselor for the Russia investigations Robert Mueller found it. The October indictment charges Manafort with laundering millions that came from Yanukovich. Manafort’s relationship with Yanukovich was widely known inside Ukrainian political circles, as well as to Clinton campaign head John Podesta’s brother Tony Podesta, who worked directly for Manafort while he represented Yanukovich.'

More in this vein: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251897/obama-steele-dossier-russiagate

Kevin said...

I respectfully disagree. Clapper, McCabe, Page and Strzok actually believed what was in the dossier because their hatred and loathing of Trump enciuraged them to never question the veracity of the dossier. They showed it to Trump because they thought it was true and they could use it as leverage over Trump, to get him to do what they wanted.

As they still hadn't verified the contents of the dossier as of last week, it's hard to say they believed everything that was in there. Perhaps they hoped to get an indication from Trump himself - that is certainly reasonable. But my larger point was they didn't want this thing popping up a few months into his Presidency such that the message was they were hiding it from him the whole time.

Maintaining the appearance that the game is fair is part and parcel in rigging it.

walter said...

"Without the evidence that points to specific actions taken by significant numbers of individuals within the institutions your strategic level of thinking about institutions will not be enough.

You need both. "

Yep..credible connection of the dots paints a fuller picture.
The more this gets fleshed out, the more I understand Comey making like a curtain.
Also entertaining is the attempt to downplay aspects of the insurance brokers due to secret "love".
Gonna make a helluva movie someday.
Though..took all this time for Chappaquiddick to be made.

Original Mike said...

Calm down, people. I have it on good authority that Mueller is closing in!

Birkel said...

Anybody else remember how a certain not to be named LLR commenter went on and on about how stupid Trump was to claim he had been tapped?

I would wager one of us will not be able yo remember that.

JPS said...

Chuck,

"The Althouse Blog... selectively rediscovers The National Review."

It's National Review. No "The." They've been fighting that for 50+ years. The New Republic was TNR, National Review is NR.

I'm tempted to make a wisecrack about a lifelong Republican not knowing that, but you catch way too much crap over that....

Original Mike said...

"Anybody else remember how a certain not to be named LLR commenter went on and on about how stupid Trump was to claim he had been tapped?

I would wager one of us will not be able yo remember that."


I'd wager he'll still defend his position.. Wasn't it based on a narrow definition of the word "wiretapped"?

buwaya said...

Drago,

The NYT article has that piquant bouquet of disingenuous hypocrisy that the NYT has made its own, when the facts are not going it's way.

Gilbert Pinfold said...

What has been overlooked is the seminal event in unwinding this conspiracy. During the transition, Adm. Mike Rogers, the head of NSA, briefed Trump at Trump Tower. Quickly, Brennan (CIA), Clapper (DNI), and Comey (FBI) called on Rogers to be fired. For what? Briefing the president-elect without "authorization". Trump then made the statement that his "wires had been tapped", and the world mocked. I believe that Rogers knew about the conspiracy to smear Trump and make him unelectable, as well as the FISA warrant which would of course be part of NSA's remit. He briefed Trump, who has known all along what had happened, and has let things move along with selective leaks and tips, including Nunes' visit to the White House to be shown surveillance logs. No need for Trump or Sessions to do the discovery which would taint it in the press's eyes, use the Inspector General and Congress to reveal all. Oh, and by the way, Rogers is still at NSA, while Brennan, Clapper, and Comey are out. Trump values loyalty and a "heads up".

Original Mike said...

Apparently, the lefty talking points are a good man (James Baker), who has served this country for 25 years, is being slimed to distract us because, wait for it, ... Mueller is closing in!

Too bad Inga's not here so we can hear it from the horse's mouth.

DanTheMan said...

Why is anyone surprised by any of this?
In 1993, Craig Livingston, hired by Hillary Clinton, asked the FBI for their files on 900 leading Republicans.
Not only did the FBI provide the files, when it was discovered, the FBI then covered for the Clinton White House, pretending that giving 900 FBI files to a political operative was not illegal.
And a special prosecutor found nothing worth prosecuting. According to the President, it was a "completely honest bureaucratic snafu".

The Clintons have been using the DOJ and the FBI to do their dirty work for decades.

The only surprise here is that Trump won, so *a little bit* of what they've done is coming to light. God only knows what else they've done that we will never know.

walter said...

I do remember the flurry of posters here who swallowed the piss-gate story like puerile pelicans.
I suspect that a more realistic story would have tripped fewer BS detectors.

Buwaya,
Since Wisco's John Doe overreach seems to be solely a concern of "red meat" "right wing" folks by and large, I fear the same for all this Federal level shenanigans.
The left is sucking all the oxygen/attention out of the room with stories of dick moves.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Big Mike,
"If Trump does nothing more than depoliticize the DoJ and FBI,"

We're already at the point that we don't trust the IRS, DOJ, and FBI. Unfortunately, that's a good thing.

Humperdink said...

"The Althouse Blog... selectively rediscovers The National Review."

Not I. I bounced them from my favorites list when they started behaving like Life Long Republicans. It will take awhile for them to return to my must-read list. Jonah Goldberg was the worst.

Original Mike said...

Is there no hope that "straight-shooter" Mueller will persue the evidence where it leads?

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that the smoking gun is the FISA warrant and it’s supporting documentation, and that is why both the DoJ and the FBI are stonewalling Congress there. At some point though, their excuses are going to run out. McCarthy put some more facts out, in that article supporting the hypothesis that the DNC/Clinton funded Steele Dossier was the primary basis for the warrant. But we don’t, yet, know for sure. If there is evidence in the FISA filings that the Dossier was utilized, then I expect that the entire edifice will come crumbling down, because that will mean that the people at the top of the FBI and DoJ KNEW that they were using Dem funded opposition research to illegally spy on the opposition candidate, and then, the duly elected, incoming President and his team. They all knew because, among other things, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, knew because his wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS, and he personally knew the principals there. And the FBI reported to the DoJ through his boss, Deputy AG Sally Yates. By law, AG Lynch had to certify the information in FISA warrant applications. There just isn’t that much wiggle room there, if the Dossier indeed was used to support the FISA warrant. Someone lied, either Lynch to the FISC, or Yates or Ohr to Lynch, knowing that she would take their word for the provenance of the supporting documentation. My vote, right now, is Ohr. Still, if it was, Yates and Lynch should have triple checked the supporting documentation, because they were about to do something unprecedented- legally justify the spying on the other party’s Presidential campaign, and then, later, the incoming President.

Pass the popcorn. Should be interesting.

Original Mike said...

Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s deputy director who has been the target of Republican critics for more than a year, plans to retire in a few months when he becomes fully eligible for pension benefits, according to people familiar with the matter.

He belongs in prison.

Original Mike said...

"If there is evidence in the FISA filings that the Dossier was utilized, then I expect that the entire edifice will come crumbling down, because that will mean that the people at the top of the FBI and DoJ KNEW that they were using Dem funded opposition research to illegally spy on the opposition candidate, and then, the duly elected, incoming President and his team."

Mueller has to know this, right?

Humperdink said...

I read the WaPoo article on McCabe (age 49) retiring in March with a full pension. Presumably he will be eligible for full healthcare until Mediscare kicks in at 65. Most than likely he will live to 85+/-.

Let see, he works for <30 years, full pension for 35 years. So why are we broke again?

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Shorter version of Chuck:

"Don't believe a word McCarthy writes."

Why can't you just write that out for yourself, Chuck?

Fuck you. And fuck all of your pals here who expressed similar sentiments. In January of 2016, Andy McCarthy was writing that Trump was unfit to be president. That Trump had no clue about the basics of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.

And notice that I didn't criticize or trashtalk Andy McCarthy today. I've been reading Andy longer than most of you, and I like him. He's missed the mark a couple of times, but he's always forthright. And normally, he's quite careful and measured in his writing, especially about legal process and criminal investigations. I'm not doubting the content of this column. It's a hell of a lot better than an idiotic Trump Tweet on the same subject.

No; the point I wanted to ram down the throats of many here is that a year ago, in the days of NR headlining an entire issue "Against Trump", so many of you were swearing off National Review forever. Saying that it was bullshit and filled with NeverTrump writers and no longer trustworthy.

And now here we are today.

I've got nothing to answer for; no hypocrisies to explain. Somebody up above wondered above if I had to back off of my scathing criticism of Trump for his insane series of Tweets about Obama "tapping [Trump's] wires..." Well, I don't think I do; at least not based on anything from Andy McCarthy since he seems to agree with me:

Obviously, it does not help that the president responded to this by alleging in a tweet, “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower” — another apparent distortion.
...
And the political hostility is not found only on the left. There are many on the right whose reluctance (or worse) about Trump has understandably been exacerbated by his Putin rhetoric, which has ranged from weirdly solicitous to repugnant. In addition, they are not buying the line that “you can’t take Trump literally.” They think (I know this sounds crazy) that when a president speaks, he should speak truthfully (at least within the forgiving leeway of diplomacy). Plus, they are disturbed by Trump’s likely untrue statement that Obama tapped him, even if it was leveled within the context of a true allegation that the Obama administration investigated Trump associates connected to Trump’s campaign.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445710/fisagate-trump-russian-collusion-questions-will-never-be-resolved


Bruce Hayden said...

“Mueller has to know this, right?”

I don’t think so. Or, maybe now, but very likely not back when this was all happening. He was a private citizen at the time. Comey, on the other hand, is the problematic one. Some of his underlings very likely knew. But I suspect that he was kept in the dark. We shall see.

Humperdink said...

"Obviously, it does not help that the president responded to this by alleging in a tweet, “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower” — another apparent distortion."

Wires tapped a distortion? It's a distinction without a difference. Does not surprise me that you don't see that.

Speaking of coming around, did you see where a day or two ago the McConnell became a fan of Trump tweeting?

Original Mike said...

@Bruce - I mean, he has to know now. And isn't it his mandate to persue it?

Original Mike said...

"I've got nothing to answer for; no hypocrisies to explain. Somebody up above wondered above if I had to back off of my scathing criticism of Trump for his insane series of Tweets about Obama "tapping [Trump's] wires..." Well, I don't think I do; "

Chuck, it's looking more and more likely that Trump was right. Would it kill you to admit it?

walter said...

Chuck,
Your point about NR have been addressed upthread...i.e. the folks you predictably hurl expletives at say NR is shifting, perhaps pragmatically, towards accepting a Trump presidency.
You do realize the "Fuck you!" hair on fire routine makes you look foolish, right?
I think you and Drago have some sort of dysfunctional call and response bit..that you enjoy.

Luke Lea said...

Any predictions for how it all ends?

Will Mueller not only exonerate Trump but expose the abuses of FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNC, or particular individuals within. (Or will the Investigator General do that?

Sessions has been quiet. I think he is playing his cards smartly. Timing is all. Timing is something Trump seems to understand too: he thinks ahead. Let's see what happens in his State of the Union and going into the fall.

(Disclosure: old man, half senile)

Bruce Hayden said...

Chuck linked to this old (3/13/17) McCarthy article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445710/fisagate-trump-russian-collusion-questions-will-never-be-resolved

It is interesting to piece the two articles together. The big difference, of course, is how much more we know now, than we did > 9 mo ago. No mention was made in the earlier article to the Steele Dossier. And the questions he raised were much more generalized. For example, he essentially asked back then what the basis for the FISA warrant was. In the recent article, his questions are much more specific - notably whether the Steele Dossier was used as part of the evidence supporting the FISC warrant application. Back in March, the Dossier was merely salacious, and not thought that important. Now, it has moved to center stage, because, with what we know now, if it was used that way, then it is fairly likely that crimes were committed by either the Obama DoJ appointees, and/or the career attorneys and investigators in the DoJ and FBI in using the Dossier that way, allowing political operatives in the White House to access the results of such, and then leak it.

Chuck said...

walter said...
Chuck,
Your point about NR have been addressed upthread...i.e. the folks you predictably hurl expletives at say NR is shifting, perhaps pragmatically, towards accepting a Trump presidency.
You do realize the "Fuck you!" hair on fire routine makes you look foolish, right?
I think you and Drago have some sort of dysfunctional call and response bit..that you enjoy.

I don't enjoy Drago one bit. He's a waste of my time. He's a waste of space on these comments pages. He's probably the most regular violator of the Althouse comment-posting rules. More often than not, his posts are personal attacks without any content as to the original post or the substance of any commentary.

Drago should have been kicked off long ago. He'd have been a very good example, by Althouse, for the rest of the commentariat. She would have improved the blog immediately, if she had removed Drago and made an example of him.

Luke Lea said...

That Trump hired prostitutes to pee on a bed that Obama slept in, or something like that: it is so preposterous on its face you have to wonder what the motive (and who) was behind getting it into the dossier? Was it a practical joke? It seems self-discrediting.

Bay Area Guy said...

"I read the WaPoo article on McCabe (age 49) retiring in March with a full pension."

Hell yeah! Get the fuck out, McCabe.

This makes me happy. The snakes are getting rousted out of the den:

Strzok - HR
Comey - fired
Baker - reassigned
McCabe - "early" retirement

Page needs to be sent to the mail room, too.

There's a probably a few more, we haven't heard about, but McCabe was the problem child.

If I were Don McGahn, I'd get word indirectly to Mueller: "Shut down the 'Get Trump' squad tastefully and tactfully, or we ream out the FBI
even harder.

Humperdink said...

"Any predictions for how it all ends?"

Yep, see the Cliven Bundy debacle. Government overreach, withholding exculpatory evidence, biased prosecutors, whistle blowers ... all in one tidy package.

Fritz said...

Page needs to be sent to the mail room, too.

She's already played the woman scorned card to get out of it.

Original Mike said...

Mail room, hell. These people used the power of the federal government to influence a Presidential election. They did what they are accusing the Russians of doing. People need to go to jail.

Big Mike said...

I don't enjoy Drago one bit. He's a waste of my time. He's a waste of space on these comments pages. He's probably the most regular violator of the Althouse comment-posting rules. More often than not, his posts are personal attacks without any content as to the original post or the substance of any commentary.

Then why do you read his comments, Chuck? When you call for his dismissal from the Althouse commentariat do you not realize that your efforts to squelch him are even more obnoxious than his comments?

Is there a point where you stop being a moby? Right now there is no such thing as a Republican, much less a "lifelong" Republican, who is not happy with what Trump has accomplished in just eleven months. He has a long way to go to muck out the rot of eight years of Barack Hussein Obama, but he is making good progress and all of us real Republicans with him success. I expect that he'll continue to have missteps, but he's learning discipline on the job and that's a good thing.

cubanbob said...

If heads don't roll and people go to jail then this is a farce.

Bruce Hayden said...

“@Bruce - I mean, he has to know now. And isn't it his mandate to persue it?”

Sure, in a perfect world. His remit/mandate could probably allow it. But I don’t see it happening.

Bay Area Guy said...

In his peaceful retirement, he'll write a good book, get a few nice consulting gigs, but hopefully McCabe will also watch some great old episodes of "The Wire," particularly the one where Omar reminds us that:

"When you come at the king, you best not miss."

Matthew Sablan said...

I never thought it was this well coordinated from the top but I also said I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Obama and Clinton are notoriously paranoid and Obama broke the law to spy on journalists and Congress. Possibly the Supreme Court too though that was never proven. It is within believable limits he'd order this.

Birkel said...

It is enough for me to know that the various and sundry fopdoodles on this page understand that the rest of us were correct and that those various and sundry fopdoodles were all wet.

Andy McCarthy was incorrect when he relied on his personal, well-breed biases to suggest Trump was not fit for the office. That was his pride, fucking with him. But his ass went down in the 11th month, just like scheduled. Andy McCarthy thinks proper upbringing, as defined by Andy McCarthy, is more important than principles and policies. Andy McCarthy remains incorrect on that point. But now he sees that all the well-breed jackals in government are would-be rulers and he questions their fitness for their respective public offices.

Andy McCarthy, and many other self-styled LLRs, will never come to contemplate how creases in pants and proper manners do not mark a man's worth as a man. Proper breeding is an affront to decency. It is the enforcement mechanism of a self-selected, malignant poseurs. They wish to rule and wish us subjects.

buwaya said...

It does not matter if any collection of top men in such an organization are removed.

The number of these, and their apparent ubiquity in the organization, indicates that everyone under them, their potential replacements, are their proteges, and so on for the next layer down, and etc.

You cannot trust anyone there, under these circumstances. You cannot prudently select a new leadership from within the organization. Its a poisoned tree that will never bear sound fruit.

Original Mike said...

"It is enough for me to know that the various and sundry fopdoodles on this page understand that the rest of us were correct and that those various and sundry fopdoodles were all wet."

What makes you think they do?

Birkel said...

Original Mike:
Them knowing and admitting same are not the same thing. The ferocity with which they deny the obvious is the indication they know. But their self-imposes cognitive dissonance will provide the psychological cover they need.

They need that cover because they are weak and incapable of humbleness.

I am unburdened by grandiose thoughts about myself. I bear my own humanity easily.

Not so the LLRs who have been wrong at every turn. But they know.

Original Mike said...

"Them knowing and admitting same are not the same thing. The ferocity with which they deny the obvious is the indication they know."

I honestly don't think Inga does.

walter said...

Tough times in the ole swamp.."Andy" staring down the cold barrel of an early pensioned retirement.
No mercy.

Original Mike said...

How does McCabe retiring affect his position as a witness? Can he tell Congress to go pound sand?

mockturtle said...

You cannot trust anyone there, under these circumstances. You cannot prudently select a new leadership from within the organization. Its a poisoned tree that will never bear sound fruit.

As usual, I agree with buwaya. The swamp must be thoroughly drained. Drained and disinfected.

The Godfather said...

And yet, if Mueller accuses Trump of conspiring with "the Russians" to "hack" the 2016 election, that will be the story that the network news and high-prestige newspapers and magazines will run with. Who will care or even know about the shenanigans we're all talking about here? And isn't that the best way for Mueller and his team to protect "their" institutions, the DOJ and FBI?

Original Mike said...

@The Godfather - Yeah, and then the democrats take the House and they use that as the basis for impeachment. Luke Lea asked upthread how this all ends. I don't have a good feeling about it.

Birkel said...

The Godfather:
In a word, no. The protection of the institutions would require them to adhere to a principled position. Their current political position is untenable.

It will no only be Trump and Rand Paul who take aim. Much worse is inevitable if they are not reformed from without.

DanTheMan said...

>>Will Mueller not only exonerate Trump but expose the abuses of FBI, DOJ, CIA, DNC, or particular individuals within.

Not very likely. Prosecutors prosecute, or more correctly, get guilty pleas by threatening total ruin vs. accepting a reduced charge.

Mueller will get some scalps. He has one already.

Rt1 Rebel said...

@Godfather & Big Mike

That's what's been going on for the past 9 months, yet the further down that path they go, the more the wheels on that cart wobble. I don't see anything new coming out about collusion, if they had it, they'd be wrapping it up by now. Instead, Mueller appears to be fishing for process and financial crimes. He does so at his own peril. The longer the investigation drags on, the more corrupt it looks, and it smells really bad right now. Given the information we have in the last month, Mueller is probably kicking himself for not ending it sooner.

Big Mike said...

Given the information we have in the last month, Mueller is probably kicking himself for not ending it sooner.

If Mueller is fundamentally honest, which others proclaim but which I doubt (having been in the JEH auditorium for one of his speeches), then you're right. But I think he's going to keep on going on in the hope that a miracle happens. Sort of like Ken Starr, whose Whitewater investigation would have been a useless POS except for the Lewinski affair.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "More often than not, his posts are personal attacks without any content as to the original post or the substance of any commentary."

Find an example of a personal attack.

One should suffice.

Drago said...

One cannot help but notice that LLR Chuck seems quite desperate to turn the discussion on these thread away from the topic of the clearly emerging horrors of the dems/left/establishment types activities and their weaponization of the federal bureaucracy against republicans in general and Trump in particular.

One wonders why a LLR would be so very very very desperate to do that.........not.

We know perfectly why he is attempting that.

Drago said...

DantheMan: "Mueller will get some scalps. He has one already."

Indeed, unless thrown out later due to use of tainted intercepts illegally obtained.

The fact that it was Strzok himself who did the "casual interview" with Flynn is not going to help Mueller's case.

See the Bundy's and BLM stories coming out now as well.

Drago said...

buwaya: "You cannot trust anyone there, under these circumstances. You cannot prudently select a new leadership from within the organization. Its a poisoned tree that will never bear sound fruit."

Indeed.

If you are afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't go to the barrel. Get it off the tree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI67dSs3dXU

Michael K said...

"He's a waste of my time. He's a waste of space on these comments pages. "

Chuck, do you have any self awareness ?

Even Inga once in a while posts something reasonable. Not often but more than you do,

Your antipathy to Trump, even though he is accomplishing the things the GOP promised for years, is hard to understand.

It leads to suspicion that you are a Moby,

mockturtle said...

Chuck, do you have any self awareness ?

I assume that question is rhetorical.

Yancey Ward said...

Orginal Mike asked:

"How does McCabe retiring affect his position as a witness? Can he tell Congress to go pound sand?"

Congress can still subpoena him, but as a private citizen, he would have have much greater leeway to take the 5th. I think you may not see him as a witness again in an official capacity with the FBI- he will try to play out the string until March, like take a 3 month vacation overseas. I think is retiring for exactly this reason- he knows he can't dodge the issue any longer while on the job.

Yancey Ward said...

The initial stage of my retirement was less voluntary, so my accrued vacation would bought out by my company at full pay. I would think most people who retire voluntarily do the same in any case- there is no pressing need to take 3 months of vacation at the end if you are retiring, but you go into retirement with 3 extra months of pay by not taking it. I bet McCabe does the opposite and never works another day in the country until it is over in March.

Yancey Ward said...

Ah, a nice "Fuck you" from Chuckles. Thanks, Chuck. Merry Christmas!

Drago said...

Yancey Ward: "Ah, a nice "Fuck you" from Chuckles. Thanks, Chuck. Merry Christmas!"

Always pleasant to receive one of those from Chuck. Especially given that he would never utter anything so crass at any lefty anywhere at any time, so at least I'm in the correct target group!

Chuck is really going to miss McCain's attacks on the republican base when the inevitable occurs.

Yancey Ward said...

Gilbert Pinfold reminds of an important event that got overlooked soon after it happened:

"What has been overlooked is the seminal event in unwinding this conspiracy. During the transition, Adm. Mike Rogers, the head of NSA, briefed Trump at Trump Tower. Quickly, Brennan (CIA), Clapper (DNI), and Comey (FBI) called on Rogers to be fired. For what? Briefing the president-elect without "authorization"."

You can read about this here in that right wing rag WaPo.

Now, at the time, it wasn't really known why Rogers went to Trump, but I think it abundantly clear now, isn't it? The vehemence from Clapper and Brennan is way over the top otherwise, thus it is very, very likely Rogers told Trump he had to be careful who he talked to, how he talked to them, and where he did it. I think it is true this is where Trump first learned of the surveillance, at least parts of it.

Drago said...

YW: "Now, at the time, it wasn't really known why Rogers went to Trump, but I think it abundantly clear now, isn't it?"

It is indeed.

And, of course, the deep staters immediately sought to get rid of Rogers, for obvious reasons.

For the same reasons Mueller HAD to have only dem partisans on his team. He can't afford to have even one person who is not completely in the tank for Clinton as a party to what his guys are up to because that individual would call BS in a heartbeat and could not be trusted to be a good lefty "team player". That type of person is highly unlikely to be willing to along with an "HQ Special" for the lefties.

People keep asking why Mueller would damage the credibility of the investigation by only having Clinton/obama partisans on the team.

Because Mueller is no dummy, and the alternative, putting a non-lefty on the team, was so dangerous he simply took the best of the bad options: dem partisans all.

Original Mike said...

"Congress can still subpoena him, but as a private citizen, he would have have much greater leeway to take the 5th. I think you may not see him as a witness again in an official capacity with the FBI- he will try to play out the string until March, like take a 3 month vacation overseas. I think is retiring for exactly this reason- he knows he can't dodge the issue any longer while on the job."

It's so discouraging. This is treason territory. Deterence requires consequences, yet this guy gets to retire on his government pension.

Yancey Ward said...

I lost a longer comment directed to Bruce Hayden when I posted into a lost internet connection, but it was basically to support his comparison of the two McCarthy essays 9 months apart. What has been forgotten since the Summer of 2016 are the two letters Harry Reid wrote describing explosive intell that Brennan and Clapper were sitting on prior to the election. WaPo published a story this past Summer describing a piece of intelligence from the inner circles of Putin that was so super sensitive it was withheld from the daily briefing- so sensitive it was for Obama's eyes only and WaPo's readers, apparently. The entire driven narrative was this was in-house generated intell, but is now increasingly likely the dossier was the source for all of it.

Original Mike said...

"Because Mueller is no dummy, and the alternative, putting a non-lefty on the team, was so dangerous he simply took the best of the bad options: dem partisans all."

Good point.

Steve Uhr said...

It was my understanding that little in the dossier has been determined conclusively to be false. Am I wrong?

Drago said...

It gets even better of course.

Trump has approved large weapons sales/transfers to Ukraine, which obambi refused, and which have set the Russians back on their heels.

Precisely the sort of thing someone who could be an "asset" to Russia because of compromising information would NOT do.

Trump "Colludes" With Ukraine"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/12/185576.php

snip: "In any event, it’s clear that President Trump has moved boldly to advance Ukraine’s interests at the expense of Russia’s, to the displeasure of Putin. I don’t see how this move can be squared with the extreme anti-Trump rhetoric of the foolish Clapper and others who peddle a similarly hysterical line."

Obviously Mirengoff is unfamiliar with LLR Chuck and Inga.

Drago said...

Steve Uhr: "It was my understanding that little in the dossier has been determined conclusively to be false. Am I wrong?"

LOL

Hilarious!

You're really going to go with that one, eh?

Nothing in the dossier has been confirmed. NOTHING...other than Carter Page went to Moscow...and that is something that was known to everyone.

Literally, nothing else.

And much has been proven false, including the moronic assertion that Michael Cohen was in Prague meeting with Russians....at the very moment he was actually in Los Angeles watching his son play baseball at USC.

McCabe had to come a bit clean and admit as much under oath.

Sorry Stevie, you are going to have to slowly come to grips with what is obviously unfolding before your very eyes...or not.

It's up to you.

You know what else hasn't been "determined conclusively to be false"? That we faked the Moon landing.

Yancey Ward said...

"It was my understanding that little in the dossier has been determined conclusively to be false. Am I wrong?"

That Hillary Clinton is a Russian agent also hasn't been determined to be conclusively false, has it? We can play this game all day long, Steve, but the fact is that pretty much nothing of note in the dossier has been been shown to be even likely true, and that is the standard such claims are evaluated on. Really, for all we know Trump might be an alien.

Original Mike said...

"It was my understanding that little in the dossier has been determined conclusively to be false."

Really? The standard is to prove a charge wrong? I always thought it was incumbent upon a prosecutor to prove things to be true.

So, Steve, tells us what in the dossier has been proven to be true. I'm serious.

Original Mike said...

Assuming Steve got this line of thinking from lefty publications, you can see how weak their argument has become. It used to be that "much of the dossier has been proven to be true". I always wondered what that was; it was never specified. Now, apparently, it has morphed into "much of the dossier has not proven to be false."

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Lifelong Cuck talking about ramming things down guys throats again?

Interesting.

Original Mike said...

"In a seven-hour interview with the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer whether the bureau has been able to verify the substantive allegations in the dossier, or even to identify a substantive allegation that has been corroborated, according to sources familiar with the questioning."

Drago said...

Original Mike: "Really? The standard is to prove a charge wrong?"

That is the brand spanking new "fully Lefty Woke" standard.

Didn't you get the memo?

Not to worry, it will change again tomorrow morning when history begins anew for the left.

Original Mike said...

"McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.

McCabe's questioners were not impressed. Page's Moscow trip was reported in the press at the time it happened; the simple fact that he was in Russia was not a revelation. Lawmakers reminded McCabe that Page's presence in Moscow was long established and then asked again: Was there anything more in the dossier that McCabe now knows to be true? McCabe, according to sources, said he did not know how to answer the question."


"did not know how to answer the question" is generous.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele’s dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I’ve come to believe Steele’s claims were used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump. There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele — the campaign and the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they’d be kept under wraps. Just as it had been with the Obama-era’s Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance would remain hidden. The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley."

Drago said...

OM: "It used to be that "much of the dossier has been proven to be true"."

ARM and Inga were pushing that because the deep staters had LLR Chuck's beloved MSM'ers fully onboard that talking point.

Alas, another disappointment.

The good news for the lefties is that their lies that have been peddled for 11 months are paying off in what is believed by the lefty base, setting them up for impeachment hearings based on believed lies....which has been the strategy all along.

The dems in congress know precisely what is going on and they have all along.

Steve Uhr said...

At trial obviously the burden is on the state to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. But a court will issue a search warrant based on probable cause that a crime has been committed. And Steele had a reputation as a good source. So it would have been wrong for the FBI to act as if the dossier had never existed.

Original Mike said...

"On a number of occasions, when asked about what in the dossier had been corroborated by the FBI, McCabe gave answers such as — these are not precise quotes — I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that. Indeed, that was McCabe's answer when he was asked for the most important piece of information in the dossier that the FBI had been able to verify."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

If McCabe has nothing to hide, why is he hiding what congress has every right to see?

"We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of legislatively created executive agencies."


Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

McCabe answers questions like a Clinton. Woof.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly before Steele’s reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to investigators."



Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion:
President Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI, shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects; the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton was given a peremptory interview — right before then–FBI director Comey announced that she would not be charged."

Banana. Republic.

Original Mike said...

"So it would have been wrong for the FBI to act as if the dossier had never existed."

It's looking more and more like they wrote the fucking thing.

"The FBI has been investigating the Trump-Russia matter since summer 2016. Now, the second-highest ranking official in the bureau will not say whether anything in the document, beyond its repetition of information already in the press, has been found to be true."

They can continue to "not prove it to be false" forever. Short of an alibi, how does X prove he did not talk to Y? It's an absurd standard.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Carter Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7 commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on leaks from “current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials,” that Page’s July trip to Moscow “was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump’s campaign.” The Times does not say what information the FBI had received that made the Moscow trip such a “catalyst.” "

James K said...

in the days of NR headlining an entire issue "Against Trump", so many of you were swearing off National Review forever. Saying that it was bullshit and filled with NeverTrump writers and no longer trustworthy.

There's no inconsistency and trashing NR for its ridiculous "Against Trump" issue, canceling subscriptions, etc., a year and half later crediting a well-written piece in that same publication that in effect comes to Trump's defense and shows some recognition of the evils being perpetrated against him. As Keynes once wrote: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What about you?"

What about you, Chuck?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime, championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S.–Russia relations. Page has acknowledged that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin’s name is well known to investors in the Russian energy sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin’s name until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.) Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller’s special-counsel investigation."


Steve Uhr said...

The FBI is full of professionals. The vast majority of them do their work devoid of political considerations. Everyone commenting on this blog is better off today because of the work of the FBI. To say they are creating documents out of whole cloth without the slightest bit of evidence is disrespectful.

The FBI has no obligation to disclose information on ongoing investigations to Congress if it believes doing so could impair the investigation. They report to the AG or if the AG is recused, to the Deputy AG, who was picked by Trump of course.

Are we to believe that none of the republicans in congress would disclose sensitive information provided by the FBI to the White House and potential targets of an investigation?

DanTheMan said...

>It was my understanding that little in the dossier has been determined conclusively to be false.

Steve, please conclusively prove to me that you did not pee on a bed in front of some hookers 6 months ago.


Original Mike said...

"The FBI is full of professionals. The vast majority of them do their work devoid of political considerations."

I'm not going to dispute this, and it's not the most important point here, but just out of curiosity; how do you know this?

narciso said...

The point is the heart of the dossier was this deal with rosneft that page had no part of, only marc Richs old firm the Qatari investment trust, and an Italian nank

Original Mike said...

"To say they are creating documents out of whole cloth without the slightest bit of evidence is disrespectful."

There is evidence

Steve Uhr said...

I was a prosecutor with DOJ in a prior life. Everyone just wants to do their job to the best of their ability.

Original Mike said...

Not everybody, Steve. You do have to follow the evidence. And in this case, the top level of the FBI looks corrupt.

Original Mike said...

As a former DOJ prosecuter, you were OK with this?

"The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI, shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects; the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton was given a peremptory interview — right before then–FBI director Comey announced that she would not be charged."

narciso said...

That's not evidence just the same laundered dezinforma, like the zinoviev telegram composed by czarist emigres laundered through mi 6 into the broadsheets of the day

Big Mike said...

@Steve Uhr, if you truly were an honest DoJ prosecutor during the Obama administration then you were one of the few. One of the very few.

Original Mike said...

I don't doubt Steve's assertion that "The FBI is full of professionals. The vast majority of them do their work devoid of political considerations.", but you can't go from that to refusing to question the actions of DOJ/FBI officials. And given his exoerience, I'm gobsmacked at his opening assertion: "It was my understanding that little in the dossier has been determined conclusively to be false.". They've had 18 months and that's the best they can come up with? Steve really should read the report of McCabe's testimony and ask himself if he isn't at least a little skeptical.

It's not long.

narciso said...


This is not the first time fusion has done thos:

https://www.scribd.com/document/354721041/Testimony-of-Thor-Halvorssen-to-the-Senate-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-7-26-2017

DanTheMan said...

>>I was a prosecutor with DOJ in a prior life.

Did the accused in your cases have to conclusively prove they didn't do what you charged them with?

You sound like you'd fit right in today's DOJ.

Original Mike said...

"To say they are creating documents out of whole cloth without the slightest bit of evidence is disrespectful."

Do we really need to start listing for Steve the cases the DOJ was guilty of hiding exculpatory evidence? Because surely he must be aware of these cases. Here's just the most recent example.

Douglas said...

McCarthy is right that the dossier is the big kahuna. It's the only way to explain the fanatic determination of The Tantrum and the Frum brigade to drive Trump from office. And, let's face it, if the Steele dossier is true, then Trump should be driven from office and helping him do anything, whether you think it's the right policy or not, taints you, too. On the other hand, if you think the dossier is all false (or at the least unproven despite months of efforts to verify it), then you don't see Trump as illegitimate but as just another president - more unpleasant than most, but worthy of support when he does good things and criticism when he does bad things. Although the Trump haters and "resisters" don't like to admit it, I think this is the big dividing line.

Drago said...

Steve Uhr: "I was a prosecutor with DOJ in a prior life. Everyone just wants to do their job to the best of their ability.

12/23/17, 9:25 PM"

Patently false.

Demonstrably so.

If you actually believe that then I have an "HQ Special" to sell you, as part of an "insurance policy", that is if I can get to it in between leaks to the WP and NYT and CNN.

buwaya said...

I dont see how anyone could prove that the FBI as a whole is net-positive as far as the American nation is concerned.

There is no metric at all for such a thing. There is therefore no possible cost-benefit analysis.

Nor is there any way to prove, to to merely demonstrate evidence, of any lack of politicization at any level. But there is solid evidence of thorough politicization in the upper ranks. So one has to assume, out of prudence, that this infects the whole.

The FBI is a very dangerous institution that can only be permitted to exist if it is utterly trustworthy, else the political danger far exceeds it value.

Skookum John said...

These idiotic demands from the left to prove a negative go back at least to Rathergate in 2004 and the “fake but accurate” forgeries peddled by CBS at that time. It is no more than a year ago that a colleague of mine, an otherwise sensible medical scientist, stated that he believed Dan Rather’s allegations because “no one has ever proven them to be false.” God Himself would struggle in vain against such deliberate obtuseness.

Birkel said...

steve uhr

Ted Stephens would like a word. And Stephen Hatfill. And the ranchers who had their case dismissed.

Most of the time you might be correct. Prove those cases are the ones that matter. And prove it to my satisfaction.

That is the standard you have announced.

Bruce Hayden said...

"At trial obviously the burden is on the state to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. But a court will issue a search warrant based on probable cause that a crime has been committed. And Steele had a reputation as a good source. So it would have been wrong for the FBI to act as if the dossier had never existed. "

You are blithely skipping over the part where the wife (Nellie) of the Asst Deputy AG (Bruve Ohr) worked for Fusion GPS, that both she and her ADAG husband were good friends with the principals there, and that they had to have known then that the Steele Dossier had been funded by the DNC and the Crooked Hillary campaign. It was partisan opposition research (looking more and more illegally funded, due to the indirect payment by them to the Russians), where the provenance of the document would have been of significant relevance to the justification for the FISA warrant, and what they apparently had on the one side is that the entirety of their validation was that Carter Page had been to Russia on the specified dates, and on the other that Trump's enemies funded the Dossier being used to support the application for the FISA warrant. Moreover, by then, the FBI had apparently already had essentially determined that the Dossier was highly questionable, based on the fact that they had considered helping pay for it, but then when it couldn't be verified, and had such questionable provenance, backed out. Both the knowledge that the Dossier was funded by Trump's opponents and that the FBI couldn't validate most of the information in the Dossier would have been highly relevant to the FISC in deciding whether or not to issue the warrant, and the fact that the unprecedented (see my comments above) warrant was issued argues very strongly that the warrant application was submitted without this information- which the DoJ and AG had a legal and ethical duty to submit with the application.

The Bundy mistrial is relevant here because the DoJ failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the defendants - made more egregious because they lied about not having such when it was requested. Turned out to be a fairly egregious violation of Due Process. Here, (despite being a FISA And not Wiretap Act warrant), it appears to have been a 4th Amdt, instead of 5th Amdt, violation. Someone at the top of the DoJ (Lynch, Yates, or Ohr) appears to have lied, under oath, by at least omission, if not by commission, in the sworn FISA warrant application.

Another interesting thing that McCarthy alluded to is that a FISA warrant to surveil the communications of a US Person essentially does require probable cause be shown that a crime has been committed (at a minimum, to conform to the 4th Amdt). But not just any crime - but rather one that involves foreign intelligence, espionage, or international terrorism. Kiddie porn, arson, etc, wouldn't qualify. In better than a year since the warrant was issued, and better than half a year since the special prosecutor was appointed, we haven't seen hide nor hair of such a crime being alleged. All we have so far is failure to register as a foreign agent (which very likely doesn't qualify) and process crimes that don't qualify because they are the result of the investigation, and not the cause or justification for it. Compounding that, allowing Flynn to cop to the process crime of lying to the FBI burns him as a witness to any trials of other members of the "conspiracy" AND they failed to get him to admit to the conspiracy in his stipulated plea (which is how the DoJ almost always pursues conspiracies). These would highly suggest that there were no underlying crimes. What happened there? What happened to the foreign intelligence or espionage crimes that the top DoJ officials had to have sworn that they had probable cause to believe had been committed, in that FISA warrant application?

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybe a bit more clarification. In the Bundy mistrial, the judge found the DoJ argument that they didn't know about the exculpatory evidence unavailing, since DoJ employees did know. Maybe the prosecutor didn't know, but other DoJ employees did know, and he implicitly attributed their knowledge to him. Which is as it should be. They were in, by far, the best position to find this information. In the case of the Steele Dossier, Asst Deputy AG Ohr, with an office just down the hall, on the same floor, in the same area, as Attorney General Lynch and Deputy AG Yates, almost assuredly knew that the Dossier was opposition research funded by Clinton and the DNC, and that the FBI had essentially admitted to being unable to validate, verify, or corroborate the Dossier (since the FBI reports to the AG through his immediate boss, the Deputy AG). It is highly unlikely that the FISA warrant would have been issued if that information, known to the top people in the DoJ, had been included in the warrant application. So the logical assumption is that it was either omitted or minimized. But because it was known in the DoJ executive suites, it is reasonable to assume that it was known to the top of the department, and attribute this knowledge to the department, as an entity.

Bruce Hayden said...

"The FBI has no obligation to disclose information on ongoing investigations to Congress if it believes doing so could impair the investigation. They report to the AG or if the AG is recused, to the Deputy AG, who was picked by Trump of course."

"Are we to believe that none of the republicans in congress would disclose sensitive information provided by the FBI to the White House and potential targets of an investigation?"

A bit of projection there? So far, the leaking has been almost all from the other side of the isle, with the orime suspect being the ranking member of the House committee, Adam Schiff. And, of course, the former FBI Director and a number of other top DoJ and FBI people. Who all have the same security clearances as the Republicans on the committees that you are so worried about leaking. And, of course, the leaking would be a federal crime (as well as a Senate or House ethics violation).

That said, the DoJ doesn't get to use this excuse indefinitely. It's been over a year now, and there has been no evidence, whatsoever, to Congress or the public, that there was ever a credible counterintelligence or espionage related crime ever committed, or even credibly asserted. How long should the DoJ have to make a case here? Two years? Five years? Ten years? Over a year, and nothing strongly suggests that this is a bogus excuse being used to stonewall Congress in their oversight capacity.

David Begley said...

McCsbe is violently dirty here. Terry McAuliffe is tight with the Clintons. Now why would he give McCabe’s wife $750k to run for the state Senate in Virginia. A state race! A fortune!

Now McCabe lies and pulls the old Clinton trick of forgetfulness. He’s in a perjury trap. This is the most important case of his career and he can’t recal?

Sessions needs to indict Point Shaver Strzok and then flip him to rat out McCabe, Lynch and maybe Comey.

The procedure I describe here is how the REAL FBI and DOJ work a Mafia case.

At the bottom of this affair are the millions paid to Hillary by foreigners in bribes. It was in the emails the FBI let her delete.

Follow the bitcoin.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Begley - my memory is that McCabe was running, in his spare time, the investigation into the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play scheme. He might not have had day to day oversight, but seemed to have steered the case to one of his closest friends there, and was making sure that it went well (and nothing was ever found there). That is what I always figured the $750k was spent for. Sure enough, that investigation seemed to have disappeared without a whimper last year.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Uhr - If you ignore the Strozk texts implicating that he and McCabe are total Democrat hacks - sure.

The FBI let Hillary off the hook because they are democrats, too.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...


McCabe is dirty.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

F the left. Leftwinger progressive democrats wwho work for the federal government in the FBI or at the BLM are brown shirted fascist power-obsessed thugs.

Bundy Trial:

Navarro’s decision apparently was a reflection on federal officials. It follows release of a memo by BLM investigator Larry Wooten that described “a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” in the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.

Wooten wrote that he had seen “excessive force,” described officers grinding Bundy’s son Dave’s face in gravel and opined that federal officials were intent on commanding “the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic cattle impound possible.”

In an apparently partisan reference that used a term Hillary Clinton designated for Trump supporters, Wooten wrote that a federal prosecutor said, “Let’s get these ‘shall we say Deplorables.’” "

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

btw- Sessions said he supported the Bundy prosecuter. Sessions is a miserable failure and he should be fired.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck said...
Yancey Ward said...
Shorter version of Chuck:

"Don't believe a word McCarthy writes."

Why can't you just write that out for yourself, Chuck?

Fuck you. And fuck all of your pals here who expressed similar sentiments. ...
No; the point I wanted to ram down the throats of many here


So what I think Chuck is saying here is, Chuck is gay. Chuck is an aggressive homo with forcible rape and sodomy on his mind.

Hey Chuck, thanks for your honesty! There's a guy, name of Andy Sullivan, you two might get along.

Original Mike said...

Remember this when people talk about the patriotic, nonpartisan professional civil servants at the DOJ.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Steve Uhr: "I was a prosecutor with DOJ in a prior life. Everyone just wants to do their job to the best of their ability.


The power of that statement depends largely on our opinion of you as you have represented yourself here. My opinion of you is low, on both brains and character.


To say they are creating documents out of whole cloth without the slightest bit of evidence is disrespectful.


So what, Steve? Does that matter? Maybe the Feebs deserves disrespect. Maybe nicknames like "Foiled By Intelligence" aren't fostered only by Mafia goombahs. Their abuses seem to have a long history. Read Rex Stout's The Doorbell Rang for a 1960s treatment, which would not be the first.

Meanwhile, President Trump is the target of massive disrespect every day, and I bet you batten on it. There is certainly little daylight on that score between you and the more obvious purveyors of that "disrespect," e.g. Inga, who will endlessly prate how disrespect is the epitome of our American freedoms.

Tell me three reasons why I should prefer the work of the FBI on any criminal matter over that of the NYPD, besides unlimited Federal resources, and infinite arrogance, if you like arrogance.