The "S" Is About To Hit The Fan

Democrat Fear: The Real Reason Behind Barr Attacks

• 2019-05-02 
• Source: TTN
 
• by: TTN Staff

29 27  133

image: https://structurecms-staging-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/trumptrain/media/picture/5c5c/9392/6970/2d31/de8a/1d00/content_Barr.jpg?1549570961

Advertisement
**Get Your Signed Copy of Newt's New Book**

A new column in Fox News suggests that the real reason the Democrats 

are attacking Bill Barr is that they are fearful of a new investigation launched

 by the Attorney General into the circumstances surrounding the beginning of 

the Trump-Russia investigation.

According to Fox News:

The only thing uglier than an angry Washington is a fearful Washington. And

fear is what’s driving this week’s blitzkrieg of Attorney General William Barr.

...

These attacks aren’t about special counsel Robert Mueller, his report or

even the surreal debate over Mr. Barr’s first letter describing the report. The

attorney general delivered the transparency Democrats demanded: He quickly

released a lightly redacted report, which portrayed the president in a negative

light. What do Democrats have to object to?

Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political

capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded

with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed. Some of it is personal.

Democrats resent that Mr. Barr won’t cower or apologize for doing his job.

Some is bitterness that Mr. Barr is performing like a real attorney general,

making the call against obstruction-of-justice charges rather than sitting back

and letting Democrats have their fun with Mr. Mueller’s obstruction innuendo.

But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing,

and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said

he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his

investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review

would be far-reaching – that he was obtaining details from congressional

investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general,

Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the

investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret

surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back

months earlier.

Barr also promised to focus on the infamous dossier which was made by

 former British spy Cristopher Steele and was a main component of FISA 

warrants into the Trump campaign.

Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/democrat-fear-the-real-reason-behind-barr-attacks#hGGLFtDVe18fARA4.99

Are Some Starting To See Through The Clinton Fog Screen?

Judge Slams Massive Clinton Cover Up

• 10/18/2018 
• Source: TTN
 
• by: TTN Staff

22 20 2  72

image: https://structurecms-staging-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/trumptrain/media/picture/5b0a/bd7e/6970/2d75/10ab/0200/content_clinton.jpg?1527430525

Take the Republican Focus Group Survey

A federal judge slammed the State Departments handling of requests for Clinton docs surrounding her misuse of classified information. The judge stated that the State Department provided "clearly false" and "misleading statements" to derail the requests.

According to Fox News:

In a combative exchange at a hearing Friday in Washington, D.C., a federal judge unabashedly accused career State Department officials of lying and signing "clearly false" affidavits to derail a series of lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said he was "shocked" and "dumbfounded" when he learned that FBI had granted immunity to former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Millsduring its investigation into the use of Clinton's server, according to a court transcript of his remarks.

"I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case," Lamberth said during Friday's hearing.

The Department of Justice's Inspector General (IG), Michael Horowitz, noted in a bombshell report in June that it was "inconsistent with typical investigative strategy" for the FBI to allow Mills to sit in during the agency's interview of Clinton during the email probe, given that classified information traveled through Mills' personal email account. "[T]here are serious potential ramifications when one witness attends another witness' interview," the IG wrote.

The lawsuits in question were filed by Judicial Watch and were filed in order to seek information on Clinton's response to Benghazi and Clinton's email server.

Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/judge-slams-massive-clinton-cover-up#IyEDbE6Y76FDj1ai.99

Will Horowitz Find Misdeeds?

BREAKING: DOJ Inspector General Will Investigate Obama Administration FISA Abuse

Katie Pavlich

|

Posted: Mar 28, 2018 3:57 PM

  Share (2K)   Tweet

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who operates independently from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration, announced Wednesday afternoon he will launch an investigation into alleged FISA abuse during the Obama administration. 

"Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today that, in response to requests from the Attorney General and Members of Congress, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will initiate a review that will examine the Justice Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)  relating to a certain U.S. person," the DOJ Office of the Inspector General released in a statement Wednesday. "As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source.  Additionally, the OIG will review the DOJ’s and FBI’s relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications."  

"If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review," the statement continues. 

Michael Isikoff

✔@Isikoff

Breaking: In response to requests from AG and members of Congress, DOJ IG Horowitz says he will investigate the FBI's request for FISA warrant on "a U.S. person"-- a reference to Carter Page. Probe will include role of "confidential FBI source"-a reference to Christoper Steele.

3:10 PM - Mar 28, 2018

• 942
• 926 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

For months, Horowitz has been investigating potential misconduct at the FBI during the criminal investigation into Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information. That report is due any day.

It Appears As If Either McCabe Or Comey Lied To Congress. Where Is The Investigatiion?

Maria Bartiromo Interviews Alan Dershowitz About Andrew McCabe Firing and FBI Corruption…

Posted on March 19, 2018 by sundance

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the DOJ firing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. It’s a wide-ranging interview hitting on multiple angles of the ongoing issues at the top of the FBI and Dept of Justice.

.

One of the common misunderstandings as highlighted within the interview is the 1.2 million investigative documents held by the Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.

First, a massive amount of the ‘pages’ are likely transcripts from the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages; as well as the likelihood of emails and other communications within the “small group” (co-conspirators) inside the DOJ and FBI.

Second, everyone seems to overlook that much of the evidence collected by IG Horowitz may also be evidence of criminality by those within the “small group”. As such the criminal evidence would NOT be, and SHOULD NOT be, released to congress because the assigned prosecutor would be using it for cases against those outlined in the investigation.

I know it seems frustrating, but there is a normal and methodical investigative process which needs to be followed; and criminal evidence needs to be closely guarded until the targets therein are indicted.

Did Comey Lie To Congress?

James Comey could be in ‘serious trouble’ for an admission he made to Congress last year. See the proof for yourself.

8 hours

James Comey could be in trouble for potentially lying to Congress after he claimed he never authorized leaks to the media. However, fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe said in a statement Friday Comey was "aware of" a leak he oversaw in 2016. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

145Follow

Chris EnloeWEEKEND EDITOR

Article GoalINFORM

• SHARE
• TWEET

Former FBI Director James Comey has come under new scrutiny over the weekend following the termination of his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, for potentially lying to Congress last year.

Federal law makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” give “materially false” statements to Congress, even if not under oath. Similarly, federal law also criminalizes “willfully” lying to Congress under oath, a crime known as “perjury.” The consequences for the crimes are stiff: a maximum of five years in prison.

What did Comey do?

The FBI’s Office of Personal Responsibility recommended McCabe be fired because he authorized FBI agents to leak information to the Wall Street Journal in 2016 — and then lied about it several times to internal Department of Justice investigators. DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz is currently investigating the DOJ’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

In his post-termination statement, McCabe admitted he authorized the leak, but claimed he was allowed to do so, given his high-ranking position in the FBI.

“The [Office of the Inspector General’s] investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that,” McCabe said.

“It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including [then-Director Comey], were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week,” he explained.

McCabe’s admission that Comey was aware of the leak presents a large problem for the former FBI director. That’s because he told Congress something completely different during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last May.

During that hearing, Comey told chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that he did not authorize any leaks.

According to a transcript, Grassley asked: “Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”

Comey replied: “No.”

But wait, there is a minor discrepancy

There is a minor, but potentially very substantial, difference between what McCabe said in his statement and what Comey told Congress. Comey claimed he never “authorized” leaks, while McCabe claimed Comey was merely “aware of” the leak he oversaw.

It may be that Comey really didn’t authorize the leak and was merely aware of it. However, that presents a troubling question: If Comey didn’t authorize FBI leaks, why would he knowingly allow one to happen?

It’s a question Congress will likely investigate further.

What did the expert say?

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley told CNN over the weekend that when he read McCabe’s statement on Friday, he “immediately flagged” the remark claiming Comey was “aware of” his leak, saying it could get Comey in “serious trouble.”

Turley explained:

There was one line in McCabe’s statement last night that I immediately flagged because he said that he had authority to do this and he conferred with the director.

The director at that time was James Comey. Now the problem there is that James Comey said under oath that he never leaked information and never approved a leak. So if the Inspector General believes this was a leak to the media, it raises serious questions about Comey’s previous testimony and could get him into serious trouble.

Turley further explained why McCabe’s statement may be bad news for Comey in an op-ed for The Hill.

• SHARE
• TWEET

Strzok Strikes Again

  

WATCH: FBI Told of Possible Breach 

of Clinton Email Server, NEVER

 Followed Up

• 03/05/2018 
• Source: Fox News 
• by: Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne, Cyd Upson

27 16 0  49

SPECIAL:ADD THIS TO YOUR DIET TO LOSE 37 LB'S IN A MONTH

Learn More

During the final months of the Clinton email investigation, FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server that suggested a possible breach, but there was no significant follow up, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.

Sources told Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in 2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment.

One source said: “Nothing happened.”

Fox News is told the Justice Department Inspector General, Michael E. Horowitz, is aware of the allegations.

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/watch-fbi-told-of-possible-breach-of-clinton-email-server-never-followed-up#xHY5CfDilHJBDaSU.99