Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the surprising move of the Republican House of Representatives toward a contempt action against officials in the Trump Administration. While some have called for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate the dossier controversy, I continue to question the necessity of such an appointment even though I believe that there is a need for an investigation. I believe that Congress can fully investigate the allegations of political influence in the federal investigation into the matter. However, that will only be the case if congressional committees can secure the information that they require (and are entitled to) as part of their oversight authority. Any such effort will have to deal with a long history of contempt by the Justice Department for congressional oversight investigations.
Here is the column:
An extraordinary thing is happening in Washington. A congressional committee is preparing a contempt citation for the failure to turn over documents to the House Intelligence Committee. That, itself, is not particularly new, but the target is. Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is drafting a resolution that would target two high-ranking officials, FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in a Republican administration.
While members often proclaim their fealty to legislative oversight, it is a principle that seems to ebb and flow with the party affiliation of the president. When the White House is in the hands of the opposing party, members demand compliance with congressional subpoenas. Yet, the same members become conspicuously silent when their own administration stonewalls committees. This time is different, and that is a good thing.
Agencies have become interestingly independent and, yes, contemptuous of Congress. This trend is due in large part to the failure of Congress to actively defend its authority when it is exercising its core oversight responsibility, such as investigating possible political influence at the FBI and the Justice Department. President Trump is under a special counsel’s investigation looking at his alleged attempts to influence the FBI and DOJ, while Congress is investigating countervailing claims involving Clinton supporters.Congress is seeking “outstanding documents” related to an August subpoena dealing with the controversial “Russia dossier,” a private investigation by a former British spy into Donald Trump’s political and business activities. That investigation was bankrolled by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, despite earlier denials by top Clinton lawyer Marc Elias and campaign chairman John Podesta.
These concerns have been magnified by new controversies over the political affiliations by DOJ officials. Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr was recently demoted, reportedly due to contacts with the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele. Other FBI and DOJ officials are embroiled in controversies over ties to the Clinton campaign or to anti-Trump communications. One of those figures is Peter Strzok, the No. 2 official in the FBI’s counterintelligence division who played a key role in the Clinton and Trump investigations. He was removed for anti-Trump, pro-Clinton statements.
The constitutional question is removed from the merits of the allegations and instead focuses on whether Congress has a right to these documents and witnesses, and whether, if denied, Congress has a right to enforce its authority through contempt power. The answer is that it does.
The Justice Department has a history of stonewalling congressional investigators. The reason has a lot to due with a change, pushed through by the Justice Department decades ago, in the process for prosecuting congressional contempt. Once a house of Congress holds someone in contempt, the matter is handed over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The Justice Department has then repeatedly refused to prosecute contempt sanctions against its own personnel.
One of the most glaring examples was the criminal contempt case against President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, in the “Fast and Furious” scandal. This was an effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to track guns across the southwest border by releasing a large number of weapons to criminals. One result of this tragic, moronic program was the killing of a federal officer. Holder should have been prosecuted for his congressional contempt, but his own agency refused to even submit it to a grand jury.
I have previously testified before Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, for members to more aggressively protect their inherent authority, including a reexamination of inherent contempt authority. There is an imbalance today caused by the increase in executive powers and the rise of federal agencies. As agencies felt more independent from Congress, they have increasingly treated congressional demands as purely discretionary.
Congress has the right to find officials in “inherent contempt” and can even hold trials for contempt, as it did in 1934. The Justice Department always bristled at the notion of congressional contempt proceedings and fought for decades to take control of the case through the statutory contempt process created in 1857. It assured Congress that it would handle such cases in a fair and detached fashion in bringing such claims before grand juries. Congress finally relented and now follows a procedure by which one house approves a contempt citation and either the Speaker of the House or Senate President certifies the citation to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia under U.S. Code.
The Justice Department, however, has largely honored its commitment in the breach. In 1982, in the contempt case against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford (the mother of current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch), DOJ declared it would not submit such cases to the grand jury where an official was acting under a claim of executive privilege. Since then, it has declined to submit contempt cases to the grand jury in the cases of Burford, EPA Assistant Administrator Rita Lavelle in 1983, White House Counsel Harriet Miers in 2008, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in 2008, Attorney General Holder in 2012 and IRS Director Lois Lerner in 2014.
That brings us back to the current controversy. The citations against Burford, Lavelle, Miers and Bolten were issued by Democratic-controlled houses during Republican administrations. The citations against Lerner and Holder were issued by a Republican-controlled House during a Democratic administration. In contrast, the current proposed citation would be the first issued by a Republican House during a Republican administration.
Part of this new dynamic is the growing view among conservative voters that a “deep state” is undermining President Trump’s policies while protecting his critics. Regardless of the reason, those of us concerned over the shrinking legislative authority in our tripartite system relish the idea of a House refusing to be stonewalled, even by an administration controlled by its own party.
In 1821, in Anderson v. Dunn, the Supreme Court held that absent the power to hold people in contempt, Congress would be “exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” That prediction has come true with officials acting as if congressional subpoenas as mere requests and their compliance as mere discretionary choices. Yet, this will be a purely symbolic gesture unless Congress moves to reinforce its contempt authority with actual prosecution. It is time for Congress to reclaim the power to hold contemptuous officials in contempt.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
134 thoughts on “A Question of Contempt: It Is Time For Congress To Enforce Its Oversight Authority”
I quoted Peter Strzok’s emails and provided some context to the statemenrs he made.
If you want to believe that Strzok was merely protecting the country and had no partisan political motive, stick with that.
Information from the Russian Dossier was leaked out before the election.
I mentioned earlier that established media outlets were leery about the accuracy of the allegations, and did not publish those allegations when they were leaked in October 2016 before the election.
Mother Jones did publish an article, “Veteran spy informs FBI of alleged Russian operation to co-opt Trump” on Oct 31, 2016, c. 8 days before the election.
That clearly indicates that there was knowledge of the Russian Dossier in the hands of the media.
They may or may not have had the dossier itself, but at a minimum, information about the dossier’s contents had been leaked to the media.
There’s more than one take on Strzok’s emails and the context in which his statement was made.
Here’s a small sample from the NYMag article linked above:
“The FBI was internally justifying its disparate treatment of the two candidates on the grounds that Trump stood no chance of success. That was the conclusion of the New York Times’ deep dive from April explaining why Comey allowed Clinton to be treated as a putative criminal but not Trump. “In my mind at the time, Clinton is likely to win,” Comey aide Michael Steinbach told the paper. “It’s pretty apparent. So what happens after the election, in November or December? How do we say to the American public: ‘Hey, we found some things that might be problematic. But we didn’t tell you about it before you voted’? The damage to our organization would have been irreparable.”
That assumption, “there’s no way he gets elected,” is the one Strzok criticized in his offending text. The policy he appears to have been arguing against is one of treating Clinton more harshly than Trump on the grounds that Trump was bound to lose anyway. Of course, we now know Strzok’s concern about a Bureau strategy premised on Trump losing for sure was completely correct.”
IOW, Tom, Strzok was not referring to the Steele dossier. The FBI was already investigating Trump’s ties to Russia based upon the hack of the DNC email server. The public was not informed about that investigation. Instead, the public was informed about the reopening of the FBI’s investigation into HIllary Clinton’s emails.
Strzok’s insurance policy remark is a classic CYA argument: If Trump wins the election while the FBI was investigating both candidates, but the public was informed only about the FBI investigation of Clinton and not about the FBI investigation of Trump, then The Bureau might have a hard time explaining their preferential treatment of Trump on the assumption that Trump would lose the election to Clinton.
BTW, the article makes a few choice observations about Rudy Guliani’s public boast about his connections to, and influence with, The FBI’s New York Office that had leaked the seizure of Huma Abedin’s laptop to Guliani who to took the occasion of a TV interview to presage a few surprises in store in the near future that turned out to be the reopening of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails.
Some perspective on the author, Jonathan Chiat.
“Such a sad, dishonest little hack”- description of Mr. Chait from a Twitchy article
“The only problem in American politics is the Republican Party”- by Jonathan Chait.
It’s not surprizing that Mr. Chait tortuously constructs this fantasy “context” of Strzok’s emails, given Chait’s fondness for distortions and his extreme bias.
If Strzok tries out this explantion in testimony, I think his lawyers will be burying their head in their hands, diving for cover under the table.
So says Michelle Malkin. According to Wikipedia:
“Twitchy is an American Twitter curation and news website founded by conservative commentator Michelle Malkin in 2012.”
They say being Twitchied is a right of passage for journalists like Chiat. I wonder if Malkin is a happy, dishonest, big hack?
You post a link of a column by a fool like Chait, then object to a source accurately describing Chait as an extreme left wing partisan clown.
There are more sources than twitchy.com that call out Chait for his extreme, irrational bias.
Chait’s own views and his own writing, like his “the only problem in American politics today is the Republican party”, provides evidence that he is a two-bit shill who “has gone full cuckoo pants”.
I can see why you dug up a column from somebody like Chait to “explain” Strzok’s words and actions.
And overall, you and Chait are likely two peas in a pod in your total lack of objectivity or honesty.
“And overall, you and Chait are likely two peas in a pod in your total lack of objectivity or honesty.”
Diane is a low brow intellectual whore who accepts anyone who agrees with her no matter the level of their intellect or their honesty.
Chait is always Twitchy
Twitch on; Michelle
“There’s more than one take on Strzok’s emails ”
There are two takes or sides. The right side or the wrong side. Diane generally chooses the latter.
Try doing some reasearch on your own that goes beyond Russian involvement/ interference in the 2016 election.
There have been numerous recent aticles covering the activities of Peter Strzok, his mistress, Bruce Ohr and Ohr’s wife, etc.
I won’t try to summarize these articles for you here, since you’d likely just discard it, and pivot back to the Russian aspect of the 2016 campaign.
There was a DEC. 6 article in THE HILL by James Druso, “The constant bungling of the FBI is an American embarassment”.
He points out that the Russians no longer have to interfere or involve themselves in out donestics politics.
All they have to do is cut and paste the reporting of the screw-ups and involvement of our top law enforcement agency in the campaign.
Here’s yet another take on Strzok’s email:
Here’s a similar, but far simpler, take on Strzok’s remark from the Stewart Baker Lawfare article linked above:
“Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example: The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely. For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote.”
It is, perhaps, humanly understandable that the supporters and defenders of Trump, being thoroughly lost in Angleton’s Wilderness of Mirrors, would see unmistakably sinister implictions in an offhand remark that someone investigating both Clinton and Trump had made. But you might want to consider the possibility that Strzok’s insurance policy analogy was just that–an analogy–and nothing darker nor deeper. Such an approach could come in handy for the purpose of maintaining sanity going forward into the future.
Those on the left live in fantasy land and have adopted the religion promoted by Stalin as there own.
Fusion GPS Hired DOJ Official’s Wife to Investigate Trump
The Hillary campaign hired Fusion GPS to manufacture the Trump dossier. Fusion GPS hired an ex-Brit intel officer named Steele who developed it using a Russian intel contact. The media smear firm then managed to embed its product at the FBI and the DOJ. We now have a DOJ contact point for them.
The department’s Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department…
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
A senior Justice Department official demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump “dossier” had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the incendiary document, than has been disclosed, Fox News has confirmed: The official’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election.
But it gets much worse. Because Mrs. Ohr was actually hired by Fusion GPS to investigate Trump.
A co-founder of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS acknowledged in a new court document that his company hired the wife of a senior Justice Department official to help investigate then-candidate Donald Trump last year.
Simpson’s statement shows Mrs. Ohr was indeed involved in the Trump research. He said bank records reflect Fusion GPS contracted with her “to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump.”
Further, Simpson said he disclosed to the House intelligence committee that he met personally with Bruce Ohr, “at his request, after the November 2016 election to discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election.”
The obstruction of justice really is coming from the inside.
Hillary’s company had hired the wife of a top DOJ official to investigate Trump. And, possibly as a result, got access to him. That’s deeply troubling. We knew that Fusion GPS had corrupted journalism. But it’s not hard to corrupt a rotten thing. Its ability to navigate the DOJ is far more troubling. And needs to be dealt with.
The latest development tells us that the anti-Trump forces unleashed by Hillary had deep access to the DOJ to pursue their campaign against him.
Take a look, I wanted to see how it read with the roles reversed.
Those on the right live in fantasy land and have adopted the religion promoted by Stalin as there own.
Fusion GPS Hired DOJ Official’s Wife to Investigate Clinton.
The Trump campaign hired Fusion GPS to manufacture the Clinton dossier. Fusion GPS hired an ex-Brit intel officer named Steele who developed it using a Russian intel contact. The media smear firm then managed to embed its product at the FBI and the DOJ. We now have a DOJ contact point for them.
The department’s Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department…
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Trump campaign to compile the dossier.
A senior Justice Department official demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Clinton “dossier” had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the incendiary document, than has been disclosed, CNN has confirmed: The official’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 election.
But it gets much worse. Because Mrs. Ohr was actually hired by Fusion GPS to investigate Clinton.
A co-founder of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS acknowledged in a new court document that his company hired the wife of a senior Justice Department official to help investigate then-candidate Hillary Clintion last year.
Simpson’s statement shows Mrs. Ohr was indeed involved in the Clinton research. He said bank records reflect Fusion GPS contracted with her “to help our company with its research and analysis of Mrs. Clinton.”
Further, Simpson said he disclosed to the House intelligence committee that he met personally with Bruce Ohr, “at his request, after the November 2016 election to discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election.”
The obstruction of justice really is coming from the inside.
Donald’s company had hired the wife of a top DOJ official to investigate Clinton. And, possibly as a result, got access to her. That’s deeply troubling. We knew that Fusion GPS had corrupted journalism. But it’s not hard to corrupt a rotten thing. Its ability to navigate the DOJ is far more troubling. And needs to be dealt with.
The latest development tells us that the anti-Clinton forces unleashed by Donald had deep access to the DOJ to pursue their campaign against her.
The type of role reversal you are advocating doesn’t work. That doesn’t mean that some on the right aren’t crazy etc. I look towards principles rather than party or even the right and left divide which is very artificial and depends on where one draws the line.
The leftist ideology compares its perfect dreams to the reality of today. One can always paint a perfect picture that isn’t real and compare it favorably to something that actually exists. That is easy and that is why this ideology is so appealing to the naive. The committed leftist takes their myths and lies changing the facts all the time to promote their faith-based religion. What they don’t tell you is the truth or provide truthful comparisons. Instead of Nirvana on earth, they provide hell on earth.
The ideology has always promoted the idea that humans can be forced to act in ways that lead to their perfection. When Stalin was their “God” the committed left was Stalinist, but when the Stalin papers were released and it appeared that Stalin killed 30 million people the committed left found it difficult to link Stalin’s name with their ideology. They didn’t change their ideology rather they changed their methodology to a more sophisticated version. Then they changed what they called themselves over and over again to confuse the unwitting. (See David Horowitz’s books on the subject since he was one of the major intellects behind the New Left. His parents were Stalinists and he diverged into what was called the New Left.)
The ideology basically relies on communist economic theory to replace capitalism. We have seen the results of leftist propaganda. Most recently it is the social justice warriors that feel they are doing so much good, but in essence, are following the same leadership as those that followed Stalin (note the violence). They are unwitting pawns doing both good and bad while promoting the leftist ideology that has been present in this country since Stalin and probably before.
You talk about the right as if it is a specific ideology. The right is everyone who is not on the left or has offended someone on the left by disagreeing with what is presently being promoted. Thus libertarians can be considered on the right along with corporatists, Friedmanites, Constitutional conservatives, conservatives, religious conservatives, etc. I think you get my point. Those of use to the left will be accepted by the left even if they don’t toe the line so we also have that gray area which is something greatly desired by the committed left because the lack of a clear line permits them to show many faces in order to capture the naive and unwitting.
The United States of America is a member of the Five Eyes Alliance along with The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Christopher Steele was an intelligence agent for MI6 in The UK.
When Steele gathered intelligence from Russian informants he had recruited during his career at MI6 that was vital to the national security interests of The United States, he did exactly as he was supposed to have done and shared that intelligence with The FBI counterintelligence division.
To construe Steele’s action as illegal collusion against Trump is to chuck The Five Eyes Alliance as well as the vital national security interests of The United States of America overboard for the sake of defending a certain US Person rather than defending The USA.
Which is more important to Allan: The USA or DJ Trump?
To construe Steele’s action as illegal collusion against Trump is to chuck…
There is something wrong with an alliance that is so vitally important that it’s okay for illegal activity to take place.
Which is more important to L4D, The rule of law or Steele, DNC, Clinton, FBI.
There are a lot of people who approve of the DNC/Elias/ GPS Fusion etc. use of Russian opposition research…..OK IF it’s done by the “right” people and for the “right” reasons.
And they are often the same ones horrified by the idea of “Russian collusion” in the 2016 election.
Using a British intermediary to do the Russian-based opposition research does not let the DNC off the hook.
Nor does using a firm like Fusion GPS.
If that’s the “logic” used by some, then the mistake that Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner made was meeting directly with the two Russians to get opposition research from them.
If those are to be the “rules” going forward, then we can give the green light to foreign involvement/ opposition research as long as the campaign officials don’t “directly” seek it…..just hire a firm like Fusion or a spy like Steele to do it for you.
We’ll see if Mueller’s investigation really covers the issue of Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign, or if it only concerned with investigating questionable activities by the Trump campaign.
I meant to add that, just to make things more interesting in the future, let’s get partisan DOJ/FBI actors involved in opposition research.
We’ll justify that as merely part of the “Five Eyes Alliance”
Apparently those on the Left have no problem with a weaponized, administrative state. They just want to be in control of the weapon. How after a year of investigations the only hard evidence of collusion to undermine our election and the sitting President rests squarely on the Left.
“Apparently those on the Left have no problem with a weaponized, administrative state. They just want to be in control of the weapon.”
That is the crux of the issue. I don’t think Diane has faith in the people or the law, She seems to believe that the law is meant to serve her interests alone. That is the face of a despot. If born with similar predilections she likely could have been a committed Stalinist. I don’t think she would have had any problem walking over innocent faces in her army boots.
To be fair, this is not necessarily a party problem. Political parties are just a means to divide us along ideological lines. Progessivism is the problem and it has infected both major parties. Is it rational for the Democrats to fear not having their candidate as President? I believe it is, but only because they know the power that has been transferred to the Executive branch. This branch has been weaponized and they rightly fear it will be used against them; however, only because they would use it against anyone that threatens the administrative state. What they will never accept is that the conservatives that voted against Clinton will not accept a weaponized executive branch, regardless of who is President.
Olly, I am not a fan of either party. I believe in the Constitution and rule of law. That is why though I wasn’t impressed with Moore as a candidate I supported his right to run unless someone could prove he didn’t have that right under the law. The same goes for Al Franken.
I am totally against the communist/ socialist system that deprives men of their lives and liberty and depends upon despots to divide up the spoils.
I don’t like the corporatists who formerly occupied the ‘right’ and more and more occupy the ‘left’. I am for our basic freedoms; life, liberty and property (happiness) which both parties have infringed upon at times. However, never have we seen our government weaponized against the people of the opposition as we have during the prior administration. That type of action can destroy our Republic and I believe those actions are continuing in the present. Perhaps Obama or the ones he follows are more radical than we realize.
I think our problems stem from the fact that government has become too big controlling too much of the people’s money. I am not saying that money should or should not be spent rather it is too concentrated in one place making it attractive for political leaders to deal with corporations instead of the people.
Olly, I think that you and I have many beliefs in common though I think you might lack pragmatism something that is a necessity when dealing with the human mindset. Alternatively, I might be too pragmatic for your liking and ideology, but I believe people have a right to their own minds and at times have a tendency to overstep the boundaries imposed which sometimes makes ideology a little less pure.
Tom, I don’t think Mueller has conducted an honest investigation, but without hearing his side I can’t draw a definitive conclusion. Maybe he isn’t as smart as people say, maybe he is working on something that we are unaware of. What has happened demonstrates the fragile nature of our Republic.
For all we know Mueller is busy handing out shovels. Let them dig, and then when it’s deep enough he’ll bury them in it.
With all of the recent revelations regarding the FBI, Sessions has been very quiet.
It is dangerous when we permit people to dig without limitations of what they are digging for. That permits the political mind to enter and displace the law.
Sessions surprises me and I don’t know what conclusions to draw. I am also surprised that this President has been relatively uninvolved with the organizations that appear to have been weaponized. He hasn’t released a lot of documents and the like. Perhaps he has a high regard for the law or perhaps reality dictates actions because the deep state is more in charge than we think. That would mean we would have to gently peel the deep state like an onion until we get to the core where they are acting as impartial officials rather than political opportunists.
If you can’t, or won’t, tell the difference between an ally of The United States, such as The United Kingdom, for instance, versus an enemy of The United States, such as The Russian Federation, to name one, preferring, instead, to lump our allies and our enemies into one mass of “foreign nationals,” then your defense of The Lecher-in-Chief, Don Juan di Mar-A-Lago, is no good to your country, Mr. Nash.
We are not going to prevail in the war on terror without The Five Eyes Alliance. Nor will we prevail on any issue of vital national security interest by hog-tying the FBI counterintelligence division in just such a way that the laundering of dirty Russian money can no longer to be traced anywhere in the world. If we take your counsel, Tom, we will be defenseless against Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation, at which point Russian election meddling will be the least of our troubles. Trump isn’t worth that price. And neither are tax cuts for the rich who don’t need them.
Late4D,…The DNC does not get a pass for using Fusion GPS and “an ally”, Christopher Steele, to obtain opposition research from Russia. You’re pretending that this was some sort of noble “national security” operation, when it was in fact buying opposition research by one campaign to use against another campaign.
That is what it comes down to, no matter how hard you try to dress it up as something else, or muddy the waters with your “national securiy” BS.
Steele’s ongoing relationship with The FBI predates his work for Fusion GPS in 2016. The FBI successfully kept the Steele dossier from the press before the 2016 election specifically to avoid influencing that election. The national security implications of the Steele dossier are sufficiently obvious as to deserve just about any characterization other than BS. Besides, as you, yourself, point out, Tom, it’s not over yet by a longshot. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the national security implications of the Steele dossier are still playing out.
How much of Steele’s earlier “ongoing relationship with the FBI involved opposition research against a candidate, paid for by the the committee of a major political party?
I think Buzzfeed published the Russian dossier…..it was shopped around to establushed media outlets, who were leery of its veracity.
Post-election, it may have been “the insurance policy” referred to in the event of a major uoset resulting in a Trump victory.
Tom, your argument hinges on equivocation. Steele began reporting his intel to the FBI in July of 2016 and continued reporting intel to the FBI through December of 2016. Those intel reports to the FBI were not “opposition research;” they were done in the vital national security interests of the US and its allies.
The first mention of the Steele dossier was on Oct. 31st, 2016 in Mother Jones. But the dossier itself was not published by Mother Jones; it was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10th, 2017 and reported by CNN on that same date.
Steele’s previous reporting of intel to the US about Russian intervention in The Ukraine began in 2014 and ran through 2016; but Steele also reported to the FBI about FIFA corruption in 2015.
As for “insurance policy,” I still don’t know what you’re getting at. Are you suggesting that the Special Counsel investigation IS . . . “the claim adjuster” on an insurance policy? If so, then who, exactly, do you think the beneficiaries of that insurance policy might be, Tom? Please don’t tell me “The Deep State.” Because I have to tell you that that sounds just like the vital national security interests of The United States of America to my ears. And therefore so much more mere equivocation.
The only ones that were double-dealing against the US were the Clintons and the Democrats. Russian involvement didn’t start until the DNC started payments. It was the Clintons that were paid a lot of money by Russia for our uranium. From then on they were potential targets for blackmail.
It was Obama thinking the mike was off that said he would have more room to deal with the Russians after he won the election. Putin is an enemy and a smart one. He knew where the weak spot was in the US, the Clintons, Obama, and the Democratic Party. When did Russia move into the Crimea? When did Russia move into Ukraine? When and why did Libya collapse? Why was Morsi (Muslim Brotherhood) supported by Obama, but not al Sisi who removed the religious anti-American textbooks from Egypt’s school system? When did Russia send troops into Syria? Who called ISIS the JV team? Who couldn’t get rid of ISIS?
From the Wikipedia article on Christopher Steele:
“According to The Independent, Steele came to believe that there was a “cabal” inside the FBI, particularly its New York field office linked to Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani, which blocked any attempts to investigate the links between Trump and Russia.”
You know anything about that, Allan?
“You know anything about that, Allan?”
Yes, Diane, that “cabal” inside the FBI turned out to be the DNC’s and the Clintons.
Wikipedia’s article needs to be updated.
The article you site, Diane was from the 13th of January 2017 at which time the Democrats were in power and trying to overturn the election of Donald J Trump. He took office January 20, 2017, over a year later.
As I said, “Wikipedia’s article needs to be updated.”. This new evidence you present is old as well. The truth that is now coming out is ugly and making you look in a mirror so you simply discard the truth and cover the mirror.
Allan, since you’re the one who broached the subject of the Steele dossier when you posted another Daniel Greenfield 100% Pants On Fire article on this blawg, it was strictly necessary to go back to the origins of the Steele dossier to correct the equivocations that Greenfield has layered over the top of that old news. So don’t complain to me about outdated information that you dredged back up in the first place.
Fusion GPS did not hire Steele until after the DNC email server was hacked in June of 2016. The Clinton campaign and the DNC made no public use of the allegations in the Steele dossier before the election in 2016. Mother Jones “mentioned” the work of a former British intelligent agent on Oct 31st, 2016; but BuzzFeed and CNN did not report about the dossier, itself, until Jan. 10th 2016–the day after Trump and Obama were jointly briefed on it. The general American public knew practically next-to-nothing about Steele’s allegations before the 2016 election. So much for the “opposition research” equivocation.
The FBI began its investigation of Russian election meddling immediately after the hack of the DNC email server in June 2016. Steele did not send his first intel report on Trump/Russia ties to the FBI until late July of 2016. The FBI did not interview Steele until October of 2016. And Steele’s last intel report to the FBI was in December of 2016–after the election. So the FBI investigation of Russian election meddling was prior to and independent of Steele’s intel reports to the FBI.
That defending the integrity of the US election process from Russian meddling is in the vital national security interests of The United States of America is so patently obvious that the FBI had no alternative but to investigate Russian election meddling. To characterize that FBI investigation as a partisan political witch hunt is an abject denial of the vital national security interests of The United States of America in favor of defending a mere man rather than defending The USA.
Trump is positively hell-bent on Making America Puny Again. And that just so happens to be exactly what Putin wants: A Puny America.
Admit it, Diane, you used out of date information that wasn’t correct when it was first written. Fools always trip over their own feet and that is what you are doing here along with trying to rehabilitate a dead reputation. Time for a new resurrection and get rid of Late4Dinner and hide behind another new name.
Presently you are trying to add confusion to the bullsh!t you printed. Of course, other investigations existed. Investigations always exist, but that doesn’t change the fact that you were dead wrong and your citation was old. Don’t give us the cr-p that you care about defending the integrity of the US election because that is the thing furthest from your mind and that is why your mind is an excuse mill for whatever bad comes from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.
Had The FBI dismissed the Steele dossier out of hand, it would have been gross dereliction of duty. The FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Squad had a relationship with Christopher Steele dating back to its 2015 FIFA corruption case. Meanwhile, the intelligence community in the US had received more than a hundred reports from Steele on Russia’s intervention in the Ukraine from 2014 through 2016. Steele’s reports on those issues were regarded as “credible” by The US intelligence community.
Chistopher Steele was and still is an ally of The United States of America. The FBI counterintelligence division is NOT the enemy, Chief. Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation IS the enemy. Trump and the Congressional Republicans are now trying to give Putin what Putin wants: No more pesky FBI counterintelligence division following the flow of laundered money out of Russia and into who-know-whose hands. At a bare minimum that IS gross dereliction of duty. For what? To defend Don Juan di Mar-A-Lago from Robert Mueller. FUBAR, Chief. FUBAR.
I would prefer that there be no more “pesky FBI” officials moonlighting as insurance agents.
This investigation is far from over, and the “unusual features” of tge 2016 campaign extend beyond Russian involvement.
I understand why you gloss over that, ignore the activities of Peter Strzok and others, and try to paint this as solely a Russian issue.
You don’t seem to give a damn about a politicized DOJ/ FBI involvement in political campaigns.
As long as it’s done for “the right reasons”.
“Insurance agents”??? Who or what do think FBI officials are insuring, Tom? The election is over and done with more than a year ago already. The charge of politicized DOJ/FBI involvement in political campaigns is directly refuted by the fact–and it is a fact, Tom–that the electorate knew nothing of the Steele dossier until after the election, because the DOJ/FBI insisted upon keeping the Steele dossier from being leaked to the press before election day.
What you’re really complaining about is the Special Counsel’s investigation. And the Special Counsel’s investigation is substantially about the ongoing national security implications of the Steele dossier. You don’t seem to give a damn about a President of the United States who may be subject to Russian intimidation and blackmail on the basis of business deals that that POTUS may have made with Russians who may have used laundered money to conduct business or conducted business to launder money.
We can’t defend ourselves against The Russians without being able to track the dirty money flowing out of Russia through money-laundering schemes in Latvia, Switzerland, Cyprus and Seychelles. So much for the notion that national security is BS.
It was actually Mother Jones that published the story about “a veteran spy” turning over information to the FBI about Russian efforts to cultivate/ compromise Trump.
This MJ article was on Oct. 31, 2016, just over a week before the election.
Buzzfeed published the Russian Dossier in early Jan. 2017.
Peter Strzok will probably have the opportunity to explain “what he was insuring”.
I’m not sure that he’s anxious to explain that to investigators, but I’m pretty sure he’ll have ample opportunity to do so.
I’ve pointed out to you, and will point out again, the dangers of those within the DOJ/FBI actively using their positions to favor one political candidate over another.
And you keep coming back to “oh, they had to do what they did because of the RUSSIANS”.
You seem to have no interest in the activities of the DNC, their attorney Elias, Fusion GPS, etc. as it relates to using Russian opposition research.
You paper that over by pretending that this was all just an intelligence agency’s heroic investigation of a Russian threat and Russian interference in tge 2016 election.
There is mounting evidence that there was significant interference in that campaign on the part of high-level DOJ and FBI officials, and you sweep that evidence under the carpet.
I do give you credit in that you are consistent and steadfast in your hypocrisy.
Tom, don’t worry about Diane’s hypocrisy. She has a Stalin doll sitting next to her computer and she is constantly asking ‘what would Stalin say’? Unfortunately for her, the doll isn’t too smart.
Allan – just checking here, but isn’t Stalin dead? So his advice would be worthless?
“isn’t Stalin dead?”
Paul, Stalin lives in the heads of damaged minds.
After over a year and millions of dollars spent, one is unable to find any proof that Trump has done anything wrong that has to do with Russia. In a one minute search on the net one can find loads of things Hillary did that directly link her to Russia in an inappropriate fashion. There is so much that it seems likely that she would be very vulnerable to Russian blackmail.
“Had The FBI dismissed the Steele dossier out of hand, it would have been gross dereliction of duty.”
Another branch of the FBI should have been investigating the Steele document and why both the FBI and the DNC paid for it. They then should have investigated Bruce Ohr who was involved in the
Steele document along with his wife who worked at Fusion GPS. Therefore, Diane is right the FBI shouldn’t have dismissed the Steele dossier rather used that phony dossier as a starting point to investigate the partisans in the FBI that were weaponizing the FBI for their own political means.
No one is saying that Christopher Steele wasn’t at one time working for the US and Britain. Unfortunately, the DNC decided to use his talents and connections to Russia to make it seem that Trump was doing something wrong when it was the DNC that was behind all the shenanigans and was using personal of the FBI to attack the opposition. It is very Stalinesque and that is why Diane seems to be such a supporter of a major abuse of power.
Diane is again right when she says that Putin is the enemy. He is, but that means the left has placed the world in a more dangerous position by preventing Trump from adequately dealing with Putin. Putin already had Hillary’s number which was paid to Hillary indirectly through her foundation, cash for the Clintons. She was already compromised by Putin and now Hillary et al. have tried to impede a working relationship between Putin and Trump to quiet things down in the Mid East and elsewhere. In other words for political gain the Democrats and for money, the Clintons both made war more likely.
Way to go Diane. You even think a bit like Stalin, but not enough to be that leader of nincompoops you previously was trying to have rally around you.
I’ll repeat a question that Late4 D refused to answer:
How much of Christopher Steele’s previous “ongoing relationship with the FBI” involved working for the national committee of one political party to obtain Russian opposition research against a candidate”?
Diane covers her mirrors and is now engaged in reading false history.
If one is only looking at political parties, the DNC is totally responsible.
Tom Nash said, “I’ll repeat a question that Late4 D refused to answer:”
Wrong again, Nash. You have actually to read the answer that I gave to your question. It’s right here on this thread just upstream on December 16th 2017 at 4:48AM. Anybody else reading this thread will plainly see the answer to your question. Follow the thread, Nash.
I had previously asked Tom Nash what he meant by his use of terms “insurance agents” and insurance policy” and the only available answer from Tom Nash is the following:
“Peter Strzok will probably have the opportunity to explain ‘what he was insuring.'”
So Nash thinks Strzok is an “insurance agent.” But Nash has not yet said what nor whom Strzok is insuring. Could it be, shall one suppose, that Strzok is insuring the vital national security interests of The United States of America? Shall one further suppose that we the people of The United States of America are the beneficiaries of said “insurance policy?”
Late4D,…Since Strzok is the one who wrote it, he will be the one called upon to explain his meaning of the insurance policy statement ge nade.
There are at least 10,000 Strzok enails and texts, and I haven’t read them all.Putting the “insurance policy ” in some context, Sryzok wrote “there’s now way he _ Trump) gets elected”
He goes on to say “it’s like buying an insurance policy in case you die before you’re 40.
It’s likely that the “insurance” against a Trump win was the potenrial use of the Russian dossier allegations if it appeared that his candidate might lose.
As I noted earlier, he’ll have oppoetunities to explain his comments and his “Hillary for President” campaign while serving at a top post in the FBI.
Tom Nash said, “Since Strzok is the one who wrote it, he will be the one called upon to explain his meaning of the insurance policy statement he made.”
Ah-ha! I didn’t know that it was Strzok’s statement. Thanks for answering my question, Tom. As a token of my appreciation, here’s my answer to your question: I presume that none of Steele’s intelligence reports to the FBI or to any other US intelligence agency on the Russian intervention in The Ukraine or on FIFA corruption were paid for by the national committee of any US political party.
P. S. Can you find any public use of the allegations in the Steele dossier before the 2016 election that were made by Hillary Clinton or the DNC? If not, then I still think your argument hinges upon equivocation. If the opposition research was not used during the campaign and before the election, then Steele’s intel reports to the FBI are just that–intel reports–not opposition research.
“I presume that none of Steele’s intelligence reports to the FBI or to any other US intelligence agency on the Russian intervention in The Ukraine or on FIFA corruption were paid for by the national committee of any US political party.”
“Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.”_Washington Post
Diane, Strzok was “insuring” that a certain elite would illegally get their way and that the American people’s opinion would not count if it differed from theirs.
Tom Nash said, “I’ve pointed out to you, and will point out again, the dangers of those within the DOJ/FBI actively using their positions to favor one political candidate over another.”
How about the danger of Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation favoring one American political candidate over the other? Was the FBI supposed to have turned a blind eye on Russian meddling in the 2016 US election? But, since the FBI investigated it, instead, then it was the FBI who favored one American political candidate over the other? Not Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation???
Take a hint, Nash, and look up PolitiFact’s 2017 Lie of the Year. It’s right here on this thread just downstream from your current location.
Diane – Politifact has a problem with veracity. They are in the pocket of the DNC.
Diane, no one of any renown has claimed that Russians influenced one vote. Interference in foreign elections is done by all countries including the United States. But Russia didn’t have to interfere with the election. They had already compromised Hillary Clinton in the uranium scandal and everyone knew she would become President.
When the DNC computers were compromised with suspicion of Russian involvement the DNC wouldn’t permit the FBI to search the computers and close leaks that impacted national security. All of a sudden national security wasn’t so important to the Democrats. It also wasn’t so important when the Pakistani IT individual had control of numerous Democratic computers that contained all sorts of information likely including national security information. That was Debbie Wasserman Shultz the leader of the Democratic House. Then again the Clinton dealings with Ukraine never enters the minds of people like Diane. Ukranian officials had to apologize to Trump for their actions in support of Clinton during our elections.
Late4Dinner/ Diane / whatever other names she might have called herself doesn’t give a damn about national security. She only cares about her personal ideology and satisfying her needs damning the rest of America.
Dec. 16 4:48 AM comment does NOT answer the question you keep ducking.
Saying that Christopher Steele had a history of passing on information to the FBI doesn’t answer my question about whether Steele had previously been hired by the committee of a major political party ( the DNC) to obtain Russian opposition research against a candidate.
If you want to keep avoiding that question, go ahead.
That’s better than lying your way out of it, and claiming that you anawered the question.
Tom Nash, are you as dense as Allan, too? The answer I gave you describing the history of Christopher Steele’s relationship with the FBI is, in fact, the answer to your question. Do the head-scratching, Nash. And cut out Allan’s Perry Mason impersonation while you’re at it.
I guve you credit for refusing to answee a direct question, then claiming that you answered it.
Oh! For crying out loud. Follow the thread Nash. December 17th, 2017 at 8:03 am. If you’re not going to read the answer, then stop repeating the question.
I don’t intend to scroll through previous comments looking for something that isn’t there.
One wild goose chase tracting down one of your lies is enough.
Nor do I intend to continue playing your game of 20 questions.
So far, I’ve answered your questions, and you keep jumping around by ahifting the questions from one topic to another.
Correction: December 17th, 2017 at 8:54 am. That’s where you’ll find the answer to your question. Now be advised: This is not a court of law. I am not a witness on the stand being cross-examined. And Tom Nash is not a prosecutor. If he were, Trump would be toast. Although, admittedly, pretending to practice law on a law blog is not against the law. It’s just preposterously boorish.
“Correction: December 17th, 2017 at 8:54 am. That’s where you’ll find the answer to your question. ”
Diane writes so much cr-p even she has trouble wading through it. It seems the question is still unanswered. Will she post still another date and time tomorrow?
What a dumb answer, but is consistent with Alinsky’s Rules. There was NO answer from Diane. That is why she makes the comment ” are you as dense as Allan, too?” She is pretending we are the only ones that can’t understand her answer. In fact, she is too incompetent to provide even a bad answer. She’s stuck as usual.
Go ahead Dinae, you have still another chance to list the question and then provide your answer without all the extraneous information. You will not do that, but you will spend the time providing a link to a non-answer and a lot of extraneous information which is meaningless.
Allan, your head is truly as dense as a hockey puck. This necessarily makes you a hockey puck-head, Allan.
” hockey puck-head, Allan.”
That is it. That is your response? You have already screwed up the date and given two answers to the same question which still remains unanswered.
It seems like a lot of work when all one has to do is post the question and answer in sequence. You can’t do that so your response is to call names like a child in a sandbox.
Tom, to some, lying is a way of life. The truism of that statement is seen quite frequently in Diane’s responses. Lying is the despot’s political weapon against the people and the truth.
” upstream on December 16th 2017 at 4:48 AM. Anybody else reading this thread will plainly see the answer to your question.”
Diane, I didn’t see the answer as an answer. In fact, you duck questions all the time while repeating history to hide the non-answer. You are a pretender. Go change your name again and put Late4Dinner in the garbage where it belongs.
Politifact rates Greenfield at 100% Pants On Fire.
Diane, take note how confirmation bias leads you by the nose and all that pulling has made you look like Pinocchio.
What you need to do is to evaluate the facts Greenfield presents one by one. You don’t do that because you can’t and that is why he is right and you are wrong leaving you with a very long nose.
I never dismissed the issue of Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.
You blithely dismiss the “matter” of the the DNC paying for Russian opposition research in the form of the Russian dossier.
If Trump Jr, Manafort, and Kushner violated the law in SEEKING Russian opposition research against Hillary, what did the DNC do in PAYING for that research, and actually OBTAINING Russian opposition research?
You can’t mask over the contradictions and hypocrisy on display by citing the “Five Eyes” program, national security interests, or the war on terror.
Or repeatedly doing a PolitiFact pivot.
And you either recognized the dangers of a politicized FBI involving itself in campaign issues, or you can continue
to dismiss those concerns.
Kushner, Trump Jr., and Manafort probably perceived a threat to Anerican national security from Hillary and Bill Clinton’s ties with the Russians.
As patriotic Americans, they probably hoped to get detailed information from the two Russians, then pass it on to the FBI.
So just like Strzok and others at the FBI, they were not seeking an edge for a political campaign.😒
Read the link, gentlemen, and learn the difference between an ally versus an enemy of The United States of America. Here’s a small sample from the article to whet your appetite:
“Russian elites have been known to mount independent initiatives to curry favor with the Kremlin. But a number of Russian analysts called it inconceivable Ms. Veselnitskaya would have bypassed her own government to deliver what are now unmistakably official allegations to an American presidential campaign.
Said Gleb O. Pavlovsky, the president of the Fund for Effective Politics, a Moscow research institute: ‘She had guidance.'”
It seemed pretty clear last summer that Ms.V was in the U.S. for the benefit of the Russians.
There is video of her front and center before a Congressional committee.
She also hosted screenings of Russian-favorable films, aimed at repeal of the Magnitsky Act.
Among those invited and attending the screenings were members of Congress.
I think she was allowed back in the U.S. on an expired VISA….I’m not sure if she was registered as a foreign agent.
What Veselnitskaya offered Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort was a Kremlin fabricated case charging US citizens with crimes against the United States. Think about that and let it sink in. Ms. V., as you call her, presented the Trump campaign with a list of criminal charges cooked up by The Kremlin to be brought by the US government against US citizens for crimes against the US. Are you following that Nash?
Russian prosecutors investigating US citizens for crimes against the US then recommending to Trump campaign officials that those criminal charges fabricated by Russian those prosecutors should be brought against those US citizens by the US government.
And you’re worried about politically-motivated witch hunts by the FBI/DOJ against Trump??? You are no good to your own country, Nash. Negotiating with Russians seeking the repeal of The Magnitsky Act through criminal charges fabricated in The Kremlin Makes America Puny Again.
You’ve all been blinded by The Lie.
Some brimstone baritone anti-cyclone rolling stone preacher from the east
He says, “Dethrone the dictaphone, hit it in its funny bone, that’s where they expect it least”
And some new-mown chaperone was standin’ in the corner all alone watchin’ the young girls dance
And some fresh-sown moonstone was messin’ with his frozen zone to remind him of the feeling of romance
Yeah, he was blinded by The Lie
Bunched up like a dunce another troller in the sty
Blinded by The Lie
He went down but he never went high, he’s gonna fake it through The Lie
“What Veselnitskaya offered Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort was a Kremlin fabricated case charging US citizens with crimes against the United States. ”
What crimes? Where is your documentation that she offered any of those things to Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort? I think we can assume Veselnitskaya was working for the Russian state and Putin. She had likely been illegally lobbying Congress by not registering the company that hired the lobbyists with the government as a foreign agent. She should not have been let into the country but was permitted in under Obama’s administration.
The entire case that involves Veselnitskaya is extremely complicated and is over a decade long. There are no quick answers (of the sort you desire) because it involves corruption at the highest level in Russia, killings, and disinformation. At the core is hundreds of billions of dollars, power, and political shenanigans.
Here’s another rating from Wikipedia’s article on PolitiFact:
“PolitiFact’s 2017 Lie of the Year was Donald Trump’s claim that Russian election interference is a “made-up story.” The annual poll found 56.36% of the 5080 respondents agreed that Trump’s “Pants on Fire” statement deserved the distinction. Raul Labrabor’s statement that ” Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care,” and Sean Spicer’s statement that “[Trump’s audience] was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period,” came in second and third place getting 14.47% and 14.25% of the vote respectively. In its article, PolitiFact points to multiple occasions where Donald Trump stated that Russia had not interfered with the election dispute multiple government agencies claiming otherwise.”
Allan said, “Those on the left live in fantasy land and have adopted the religion promoted by Stalin as there own.”
Those, such as Allan et al., who actually do live in fantasy land have adopted PolitiFact’s 2017 Lie of the Year as though it were The Gospel Truth according to Donald Pants On Fire Trump.
Diane, I’ll repeat what I said while you rely on confirmation bias. “Those on the left live in fantasy land and have adopted the religion promoted by Stalin as there own.”
I think you would have been a big supporter of Stalin in Russia, but you probably wouldn’t have lasted 6 months. Stalin didn’t abide by your type of stupidity.
Clearly and distinctly, the very concept of confirmation bias is utterly lost on Allan.
The Lecher-In-Chief, Don Juan di Mar-A-Lago, says Russian election meddling is a ‘made up story,’ while 5,080 contributors to PolitiFact say that “Trump’s ‘Pants on Fire’ statement deserved the distinction of PoliFact’s 2017 Lie of the Year,” and Allan immediately confirms the gospel truth of Trump’s holy scripture, while repeating for the third time on this thread, alone, Allan’s aboriginal accusation that “those on the left live fantasy and have adopted the religion promoted by Stalin as their own.”
Gee. I wonder whether Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation was ever confirmed as a communicant in the religion of Stalin?
“Clearly and distinctly, the very concept of confirmation bias is utterly lost on Allan.”
Really? …And that is why you rely upon Politifact’s statements of truth (frequently having little or nothing to do with the subject and frequently conflating different ideas) instead of a factual defense of your position? That type of thinking is what confirmation bias is all about. In fact, if I had to choose the person on this blog that was most closely aligned to confirmation bias (there are a good number) I would have to choose Diane / Late4Dinner / and whatever another name she has chosen to use to hide from prior stupid comments.
“The Lecher-In-Chief, Don Juan di Mar-A-Lago, says Russian election meddling is a ‘made up story,’ while 5,080 contributors to PolitiFact say that “Trump’s ‘Pants on Fire’”
The Russians did meddle like all countries, but where did it provide proof of a significant Trump / Russian connection that was illegal? Over a period of a year and a half absolutely ZERO has been found, but we did see Hillary and Ukraine colluding and we saw Hillary and Russia involvement where Hillary made considerable amounts of money and opened herself to blackmail should she become President.
“Gee. I wonder whether Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation was ever confirmed as a communicant in the religion of Stalin?”
Putin and Stalin are different figures, but both you and Putin draw a lot of your intellectual capital from Stalin.
Couldn’t agree more. Frankly, I can no longer bear watching the totally useless, uninformative sideshows, aka committee hearings, at which FBI and DOJ officials artfully dodge substantive questions, and political hacks disgracefully perform. It’s bureaucratic arrogance vs Rule of Law and separation of powers. Well past time for Congress to recoup its oversight authority and go on the offensive! Too much secrecy = banana republic, and that’s nearly where we find ourselves now. Sickening.
Jim, would you feel the same way IF the Democrats take back both houses? Would you like to see the Democrats really do oversight on the Trump and republican party leadership then?
Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller of the SS (Swamp Society) cannot charge and prove “Russian Collusion.”
Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller of the SS (Swamp Society) is engaging in “creative prosecution” to generate
charges ancillary to a crime that does not exist.
Mueller’s bizarrely productive prosecution of nothing.
Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller of the SS (Swamp Society) must have his status as Special Prosecutor
rescinded and abrogated.
I’m sure your message sounded better in the original Nazi text. I bet you sit around and watch all the old Nazi propaganda films. Just keep your TIKI torch filled and please do yourself a favor and watch and read something else for a change.
Thanks for reading. Be sure to catch my next edition. Most parasites stray away from the concept of Freedom and Self-Reliance but you seem to revel in it. And for that I am grateful.
You’re a genius!
Business Insider –
“Strzok reportedly sent text messages during the presidential campaign to another member of Mueller’s team, Lisa Page,…as anti-Trump. He and Page were also having an extramarital affair. Page left Mueller’s team over the summer for unrelated reasons.”
“…another damaging report published last week…said Strzok had been instrumental in changing Comey’s final characterization of Clinton’s conduct from “grossly negligent” — which would have carried legal consequences — to “extremely careless.”
Strzok is only the “tip of the iceberg,” a symptom of the disease. The disease is total corruption at the FBI. A finding of “contempt” would be a joke. A sentence of “guillotines” for all the perpetrators of the coup d’etat in America is imperative.
Gruppenfuhrer Mueller of the SS (Swamp Society) must be the first.
George, you’re scaring the children again. Don’t you think that executing the FBI and the Special Counsel for treason against the United States would be a tad Draconian, George? Besides, exactly what kind of slow-as-molasses coup d’état takes almost a year already with no end in sight anytime soon to come to fruition, George? How many heads must roll in defense of The Great Blonde Comb-Over Chanticleer who refuses to fire any of the purportedly traitorous Apprentices that he hired to do his firing for him in the first place?
Consider a far simpler solution, George. Trump fires Sessions after Sessions fires Rosenstein after Rosenstein fires Mueller and Wray after Wray fires Strzok and who-knows-who-all-else. And then The United States Senate fires Trump. Now there’s your Congressional oversight for you. No bloodshed, George. Even Trump gets to keep his head attached–Great Blonde Comb-Over and All–Cock-a-doodle-doo.
FUBAR is as FUBAR does.
Comments are closed.