The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server.

Comey relied on the Crowdstrike analysis. Crowdstrike owned by Google.

The Russian Facebook ads were very effective right? The one below is one of the Russian ads. No joke.

JALLEN,

thanks for the clarification.

Since the Russian lawyers appeared in court 9 May 2018, is the proper interpretation then that the trial must start late July 2018 ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
JALLEN,

thanks for the clarification.

Since the Russian lawyers appeared in court 9 May 2018, is the proper interpretation then that the trial must start late July 2018 ?

“Must” is probably too enthusiastic. There are very few absolutes in the pursuit of justice.

You can read Mueller’s view of it here.

I just noticed, in perusing the motion for continuance linked above, that it is a “Joint Motion for Continuance...” by both parties.

I wonder if Turley neglected to point that out in his article, or if he missed it, too.

well, thanks again.

The link above shows that both Mueller and the lawyers for the Russian company Concord Management want a delay.

That delay might push the trial out beyond the November election.

Clapper again

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...-clapper-clarify.php

In the video at the link, Clapper explains the difference between a spy and an informant.

" a spy employs spycraft or trade craft"

"an informant is open about who he was and the questions he was asking"

Stefan Halper was "open" about who he was ? As in being an FBI/CIA spy ?

He should change his name to Fapper.

quote:

"an informant is open about who he was and the questions he was asking"

This makes NO sense. So I am suppose to believe a police "informant" is honest with the drug cartels about who he is and what he is doing?

Keep talking you traitor.

I Am The Walrus: Three Key Questions In The Investigation Of The Role Of Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper

Jonathan Turley

He was called the “Walrus,” but Cambridge University professor Stefan Halper seemed remarkably agile and active in making contacts with Trump campaign officials in the summer and fall of 2016. Indeed, he not only actively consulted with at least three Trump campaign advisers but appears to have sought a position in the Trump administration.

Ordinarily that would not be notable. After all, Halper served in prior administrations, was a moderate Republican, and is a recognized academic who shared Donald Trump’s hardline view of China. The problem is that Halper also may have been a paid informant for the FBI and CIA. Halper’s role has triggered a justified referral by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for investigation by the Justice Department inspector general. The allegations fall into a gray area of Justice Department guidelines which limit “overt” acts before an election but are ambiguous on covert acts like running the Walrus.

Three questions, however, stand out over his role. The details of Halper’s work still are largely unknown. We know that the FBI carried out an investigation targeting Trump campaign officials with surveillance, document demands, and at least one informant. All of this was done through national security powers, where warrants are easily obtained and kept secret. We know this investigation began, at the latest, in July 2016 and that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application was based in part on a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign.

We also know that key Justice Department officials expressed hostile views of Trump in emails, and that key Justice Department officials have been subjects of demotions and one criminal referral. Does this mean the use of Halper was improper or that the investigation was conducted in bad faith? No. Yet, there is a legitimate reason for an investigation into, as Rosenstein instructed, whether “anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes,” adding “we need to know about it and take appropriate action.”

The allegations fall into the space between overt and covert acts for the purposes of Justice Department regulations. In 2012, a memo on “election year sensitivities” warned Justice Department offices about “the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election.” It warned that Justice Department officials “must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.”

The memo continued, “Simply put, politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

Halper reportedly was part of a covert operation. However, Halper adds a new, potentially significant element to this controversy. Indeed, it is hard to understand the objections to the investigation of his role. All Americans should be concerned by the implications of an administration running a long investigation into the activities of its opposing party. Three questions could well determine if there was a serious problem of abusive tactics or merely bad optics in the running of the Walrus.

Timing

The date of Halper’s work targeting Trump officials could prove key to the ongoing investigations in Washington. Former FBI Director James Comeyhas asserted that the probe into the Trump campaign did not start until the end of July 2016. However, news accounts continue to push Halper’s work earlier and earlier in that month. Indeed, the Washington Postreported, “The professor’s interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when (campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page) met the professor at the British symposium.”

If Halper’s “interactions” began in June or earlier, there may be some debate when the investigation actually “opened.” His work could not just contradict Comey’s prior statements but raise new questions on why the FBI moved so quickly and intrusively against the Trump campaign.

Money

A lot of money is being tied to Halper, with some accounts as high as $2 million. Many of these reports seem dubious. The Pentagon Office of Net Assessment reportedly paid Halper more than $1 million for research and development in the social sciences and humanities. However, such money often goes to other experts for the creation of reports and the holding of events. We need to know what money was paid and its purpose.

Halper was an foreign relations expert and could have received money in that capacity, as opposed to being an informant or spy. Nevertheless, if he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as an informant, it would change how he is viewed. If he was paid as an asset, using him to target Trump figures reduces the nexus with the FBI dramatically. Other notable payments also exist, like his payment of $3,000 to George Papadopoulos, a Trump foreign policy adviser. Halper gave the money and travel compensation to Papadopoulos for a paper on energy issues.

However, when Papadopoulos met with Halper, Halper pressed him on whether he was involved in getting the Clinton emails and anything he knew about collusion. Papadopoulos was clearly viewed as a possible entry into the workings of the Trump campaign. If this money ultimately came from the FBI, it could constitute the use of federal funds to induce a Trump official to be an indirect or direct asset for the investigation.

Intrusion

Perhaps the most serious allegations deal with Halper’s reported effort to advise the Trump campaign or secure a position in the new administration. If Halper was a longtime paid asset of the FBI and CIA, such a role would be deeply troubling. If successful, the FBI could have had a person working with the campaign or even in the administration who was on its covert budget. Even if they stopped paying Halper, it is doubtful that he would disclose his prior relationship. Trump officials have said they were unaware of the connection in their conversations with him.

In his meetings, Halper was clearly trying to influence or possibly join the campaign while working with the FBI. At a minimum, Halper met with with Trump campaign advisers, including Papadopoulos, Page and former national campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis. Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro reportedly submitted Halper’s name for a post during the presidential transition. If the FBI knew Halper was actively seeking a role in either the campaign or the administration, this could be every bit as serious as Trump alleged.

While the media has tended to downplay these allegations, they are manifestly serious. The use of a paid FBI asset to target a national campaign in this way would be unprecedented. The closest we have come historically was the allegation in 1980 that aides to Ronald Reagan spied on Jimmy Carter’s campaign and obtained confidential documents Carter used to prepare for a debate. While he has denied the allegations, one of those aides identified was Halper.

Link

DiGenova points out that the counterintelligence investigation of the so called Trump administration / Russia collusion, started in July 2016.

Mueller was assigned to take over that investigation.

It has been 22 months.

adding: several sources have noted that for all the talk about the DNC email hack, there have been no announcements of any Mueller indictments about the DNC email hack.

Has the Mueller investigation even addressed that yet ?

Are there indictments that are not public ?

22 months and nothing about the DNC hacks


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Devin Nunes quote (20 May 2018):

" If anybody's looking for collusion between the Russians and a political party, all they have to do is figure out if in fact Christopher Steele talked to Russians ."

I wonder how many bureaucrats in various agencies are actually undercover agents of the FBI.

How many have infiltrated the DNC? RNC? FBI?

quote:

I wonder how many bureaucrats in various agencies are actually undercover agents of the FBI.How many have infiltrated the DNC? RNC? FBI?

The Feds--a house of mirrors............. a puzzle place.

I really like the idea of the FBI planting "informants" in the .... FBI.

Perhaps a few DOJ informants from main justice implanted in the DOJ Civil Rights section?

It sounds like a great way to make a little money on the side.

Perhaps the guy at the EPA who claimed he was undercover for the CIA really was??

couple of head scratching thoughts in this article

https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...an-halper-1527029988

Mr. Page tells us he actually met Mr. Halper in mid-July, at a symposium at England’s University of Cambridge, where Mr. Halper is an emeritus professor. Mr. Page says the invitation to that event came much earlier— the end of May or early June . Mr. Page declined to say who invited him but says it was someone other than Mr. Halper.

Mr. Halper had a central role in the symposium. The event was hosted by the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), a Cambridge research institute. And the official organizer was another American academic and alumnus of Republican administrations named Steven Schrage. In a Facebook post at the time, Mr. Schrage explained that the event was supported by Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies—Mr. Halper’s department. CRASSH and Mr. Halper’s department share a building where the symposium took place.

Mr. Halper kicked off the opening session on July 11. Mr. Page confirms he met Mr. Halper for the first time at the symposium.

Another noteworthy participant was Sir Richard Dearlove. Sir Richard, a Cambridge alumnus, spent a near-40-year career at the British intelligence service, MI6

Sir Richard is also friendly with Mr. Halper. The two men were part of a small group that ran the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, an academic forum for researchers and one-time practitioners of spycraft

Mr. Page says he had never interacted with the CRASSH program at Cambridge before that early summer 2016 invitation. And while he did not speak at the event, he says the organizers paid his round-trip airfare from New York.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Some of this just stinks

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

I wonder how many bureaucrats in various agencies are actually undercover agents of the FBI.How many have infiltrated the DNC? RNC? FBI?

The Feds--a house of mirrors............. a puzzle place.

I really like the idea of the FBI planting "informants" in the .... FBI.

Perhaps a few DOJ informants from main justice implanted in the DOJ Civil Rights section?

It sounds like a great way to make a little money on the side.

Perhaps the guy at the EPA who claimed he was undercover for the CIA really was??

After seeing some of the documentaries and reading the books about some FBI ops, undercover stuff, wire taps, it makes one think the FBI can do anything if it wants to badly enough.

Joe Pistone. Ravenite Social Club. Many others.

Crime families have years family and ethnic connections, and countless ways to verify the bona fides of a potential new guy. A political campaign is an ad hoc on the fly temporary affair by comparision, with lots of folks nobody can really vouch for. Who can be trusted?

regarding the meeting w DoJ / FBI today

https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...sy/story?id=55412481

president's new lawyer handling the Russia investigation, Emmet Flood


Before the mtgs w DoJ,

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders issued a statement saying "Neither Chief Kelly nor Mr. Flood actually attended the meetings but did make brief remarks before the meetings started to relay the President’s desire for as much openness as possible under the law."

"They also conveyed the President’s understanding of the need to protect human intelligence services and the importance of communication between the branches of government. After making their brief comments they departed before the meetings officially started," her statement continued.

I wish Kelly had stayed

At noon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a California Republican, and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, met at the Justice Department with FBI Director Chris Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Ed O'Callaghan, a Justice Department official and deputy to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Nunes and Gowdy left about an hour later without speaking to reporters.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, joined Gowdy and Nunes in the initial briefing at noon, at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s request after Democrats were initially excluded by the White House.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., attended the noon briefing as well because he was scheduled to travel to Texas for a fundraiser for House Republicans, according to an aide. Other congressional leaders were scheduled to get their DOJ briefing Thursday afternoon on Capitol Hill.

After the second briefing concluded, Schiff read a statement on behalf of himself, Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner - Democratic members of the so-called "Gang of 8" – congressional leaders who get high-level intelligence briefings.

"Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign, or otherwise failed to follow appropriate procedures and protocols,” Schiff said.

************

carefully worded.

everything we have read says Halper tried, but did not get a role in the campaign

Clapper and Comey have said it was appropriate to use an informant (ie spy)

So Schiff may have said the "truth" in his normal convoluted and parsed manner, while the FBI spied on the Trump campaign

It really bothers me that DEMs like Schiff continually say these things, and REPs don't push back (exception - Nunes)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sdy:
regarding the meeting w DoJ / FBI today



"Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the FBI or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign, or otherwise failed to follow appropriate procedures and protocols,” Schiff said.

************

And OF COURSE, we can all believe anything and everything that falls out of Schiff's mouth!!

Peter Strzok's former boss is Bill Priestap.

Priestap is (and was) head of the FBI Counterintelligence Division

Priestrap will be interviewed the first week of June by House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...ews-in-clinton-probe

Although lawmakers have clamored for Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to testify, neither Strzok nor Page is expected to appear before the committee in June

about time something big goes off. long overdue

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
He should change his name to Fapper.

Perfect....Jimmy Fapper

How outrageous is Clapper’s claim that the Russian influence campaign swung the 2016 election to Donald Trump ?

Clapper wrote in his book:

“Less than eighty thousand votes in three key states swung the election”

“I have no doubt that more votes than that were influenced by this massive effort by the Russians”

“Surprising even themselves, they swung the election to a Trump win. To conclude otherwise stretches logic, common sense, and credulity to the breaking point.”


The three states were Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.5e11ae6843ee

Wash Post reported that the Russian Facebook spending was

$300 Pennsylvania
$1,979 Wisconsin
$823 Michigan

The above numbers are dollar amounts, not thousands, not millions

The Clinton campaign spent $ 1,400,000,000 overall

Less than half of the Russian ads were prior to the election.

Facebook said 25% of the Russian ads were not seen by anyone.

How did Clapper come to his dramatic “conclusion”?

Recent interview w Jake Tapper:

While at the CIA, “we did not — and that was very deliberate — did not make any assessment or any call about what impact the meddling had on the outcome of the election. That wasn’t in our charter authority or capability to do."

"since I became the private citizen, knowing what I know of what the Russians did, the massive effort they undertook and the variety of means that they used and the number of millions and millions of voters they got to, to me it stretches credulity, as I said in the book, and logic, not to think that they didn’t swing the election”

"So that is what I would call an informed opinion,"

" I don’t have the empirical evidence to go with it , but just thinking about it and seeing and understanding better since I left the government that the full magnitude of what they did, in my mind and in my opinion, they did affect the election."


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So the CIA didn’t have the capability to assess the impact on the election, but Clapper as a private citizen, just thinking about it, has an informed opinion.


Another of the ads:



so, they weren't all bad

To paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel "Never let a good tragedy go to waste"?

What's the first thing you do when you think the Russians are trying influence the 2016 Presidential Elections? Take Rahm Emmanuels advice, put it into action and spy on the Trump Campaign.

I am somewhat outraged that none of those named over the past 22 months haven't been perp-walked and arraigned. How they can continue to walk the streets, post tweets, appear on TV and act for all the world as if nothing is amiss is beyond comprehension.

When will we start seeing the indictments?