Trump-appointed judge to hear emergency wall case in D.C.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...rgency-wall-case-dc/

A Trump-appointed judge has been assigned to hear the two lawsuits against President Trump’s emergency border wall declaration that have been filed in federal court in D.C.

The two lawsuits were brought by environmental groups and Texas landowners who argue the president’s move is constitutionally dubious and his reasons for the emergency are suspect. They’ve asked the court to halt any fence-building beyond the $1.375 billion Congress approved.

Mr. Trump has said he has found an additional $6.7 billion he can use, shifting the money from drug interdiction, military construction and a Treasury Department forfeiture fund.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden, appointed by Mr. Trump and confirmed to the court in 2017, will hear the cases.

Another lawsuit was filed Monday in California by 16 Democrat-led states.

Lawyers had said Mr. Trump’s opponents would have better luck by trying to get an Obama-appointed judge to hear their legal challenge.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Trump-appointed judge to hear emergency wall case in D.C.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...rgency-wall-case-dc/

A Trump-appointed judge has been assigned to hear the two lawsuits against President Trump’s emergency border wall declaration that have been filed in federal court in D.C.

The two lawsuits were brought by environmental groups and Texas landowners who argue the president’s move is constitutionally dubious and his reasons for the emergency are suspect. They’ve asked the court to halt any fence-building beyond the $1.375 billion Congress approved.

Mr. Trump has said he has found an additional $6.7 billion he can use, shifting the money from drug interdiction, military construction and a Treasury Department forfeiture fund.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden, appointed by Mr. Trump and confirmed to the court in 2017, will hear the cases.

Another lawsuit was filed Monday in California by 16 Democrat-led states.

Lawyers had said Mr. Trump’s opponents would have better luck by trying to get an Obama-appointed judge to hear their legal challenge.

Don't they have the guy in Hawaii on speed dial?

The conspiracy to spy on, depopularize, neuter, and remove an opposition candidate, then duly elected president, by comey, McCabe, stzrock, page, Rosenstein... et al, is now pretty well defined. I wonder what other avenues for his removal we'll never know about.

OK you rat bastard, whatever you say you scummy, lying sack of excrement!

Now that "Russia Russia Russia" is a big bust, you people are back to "ORANGE MAN BAD!"

quote:

Trump 'speaks in bigoted words in private' and 'has no moral character in defrauding people' his former fixer Michael Cohen will tell Congress before going to prison

Link

tell me again what we are supposed to do with domestic enemies

Andrew McCabe is on a media tour to say he did nothing wrong and that he should not have been fired.

McCabe lied to the FBI and DoJ IG multiple times about leaking information on a story to the WSJ. The story covered the Clinton emails found on Andrew Weiner's laptop, an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and the fact that McCabe's wife got $500,000 campaign money from DEM Terry McAuliffe.

McCabe now says he was authorized to give inputs to the press.

Every time you hear that, remember this:

May 2017 Senate Judiciary Comm:

GRASSLEY: Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the [Hillary] Clinton investigation?

COMEY: Never .

GRASSLEY: Question two, relatively related: 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: No .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The friendly interviewers don't ask McCabe about Comey's testimony

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
tell me again what we are supposed to do with domestic enemies

Give them a fair trial. Then hang them.

Well Damn, earlier today News.google.com had at the top of the page numerous articles citing that Trump was in collusion to give "the Kingdom" Nukes. I read the article in the Business Insider and it seemed like some kind of witchcraft reporting.
Now there is not a single story on News.google that I can find on it? Neither could I find it the business insider website.
What gives, I usually dont see something so tasty go away so fast.

White House press release

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 19, 2019

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Individual to a Key Administration Post

Today, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key position in his Administration:

Jeffrey A. Rosen of Virginia, to be the Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sounds like Rosenstein is a short timer. About time.

Three weeks on the job and he launched a special counsel investigation into links between the Russian Govt and members of the Trump campaign team.

"Anderson also told lawmakers that she personally signed off on the original application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without having read it."

EXCLUSIVE: Testimony by FBI Lawyer Trisha Anderson Reveals Extensive Role in Trump, Clinton Investigations

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...0e1aaa576d-238318549

A key player in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign was Trisha Anderson, who, at the time, was the No. 2 lawyer at the agency’s Office of General Counsel.

Despite having no specific experience in counterintelligence before coming to the FBI, Anderson was, in some manner, involved in virtually all of the significant events of the investigation.

Anderson told members of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in August last year during closed-door testimony that she was one of only about 10 people who had known about the Trump–Russia investigation prior to its official opening.

A transcript of Anderson’s testimony, which was reviewed for this article, reveals that she had read all of the FBI’s FD302 forms detailing information that the author of the Steele dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele, had provided to high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr.

Anderson also told lawmakers that she personally signed off on the original application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without having read it. The FBI relied heavily on the unverified information in the Steele dossier—which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee—to obtain the FISA warrant.

Anderson also was part of a small group of FBI personnel who got to read then-FBI Director James Comey’s memos about conversations he had with President Donald Trump.

Besides the investigation into Trump, Anderson also was involved in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton for sending classified information using a private server.

Anderson’s testimony reveals that she received the original referral from the inspectors general for both the State Department and Intelligence Community on Clinton after hundreds of classified emails had been found on her server.

Her testimony also raises questions as to whether then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict of interest.

Lawmakers also questioned Anderson about whether she advised Comey against making a public announcement that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Clinton following findings on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) because Comey would have been “responsible for getting Donald Trump elected.”
Anderson Reviewed the Ohr 302s

Anderson testified that she knew Ohr from her time in the deputy attorney general’s office, where she’d “had a couple of meetings with him,” but didn’t have any interaction with Ohr while she was with the FBI.

Ohr was approached by Steele—whom he had known since 2007—in July 2016 with information about the Trump campaign. Ohr would pass the information to the FBI. After the FBI officially stopped working with Steele, Ohr would continue to meet with Steele and pass information to the FBI. These conversations between Ohr and his FBI handler, agent Joseph Pientka, were recorded by Pientka on FD302 forms.

In response to a question regarding any information she might have gotten from Ohr, Anderson—after a brief consult with counsel—told congressional investigators that she had personally reviewed all of the 302s relating to Ohr’s meetings with Steele:

Ms. Anderson: “Yeah, so at some point, I received the 302s, the written summaries of the interviews that FBI personnel conducted with Mr. Ohr about his interactions with Christopher Steele. But it was not contemporaneous with the drafting of those 302s; it was much later.”

Anderson told investigators she reviewed the Ohr 302s “after the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence produced its memo on the Carter Page FISAs” in January 2018.

Ms. Anderson: “So I received them in the course of the oversight process. So I believe the first time I reviewed them was probably after the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence produced its memo on the Carter Page FISAs. I believe there was a reference in that memo to statements that Mr. Steele made to Bruce Ohr that were documented in our 302s. And that was the first time I received those 302s and reviewed them.”

Anderson didn’t reveal why she chose to review the Ohr 302s, nor what it was that she was specifically looking for.

Anderson testified that she previously had been unaware that Ohr had been meeting with FBI personnel, and made no mention of Ohr’s FBI handler, Pientka. She said she was aware of one meeting Ohr had with McCabe, which almost certainly refers to the early August 2016 meeting that Ohr had with McCabe, following Ohr’s breakfast meeting with Steele on July 30, 2016.
The Carter Page FISA

Anderson signed off on the original application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—before the application went to Comey—despite not having read it.

During her testimony, Anderson highlighted the unusual nature of the Page FISA application process and the curious roles of McCabe and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who provided approvals of the Page FISA before normal FBI and DOJ approvals had been obtained:

Ms. Anderson: “All necessary approvals, including up through and including the leadership of the FBI and the leadership of the Department, by the time I put that signature on the cover page had already been obtained.”

These early high-level approvals were distinctly outside of the normal FISA process. Anderson and others were supposed to have provided approvals before the FISA was presented to senior FBI and DOJ officials. Anderson appeared to be fully aware of the uniqueness of this particular application process:

Ms. Anderson: “There were individuals, all the way up to the Deputy Director and the Deputy Attorney General on the DOJ side, who had essentially given their approval to the FISA before it got to that step in the process. That part of it was unusual, and so I didn’t consider my review at that point in the process to be substantive in nature.”

Anderson told congressional investigators that with regard to the Page FISA, by signing off she “was simply signaling, yes, this package is ready to go forward.”

Anderson attempted to provide an explanation for the unusual process, noting, “We understood, because of who Carter Page was, that people would second-guess the appropriateness of submitting the FISA application, and so we were taking extra care with the application itself.”

Yet, at the same time, Anderson admitted that not only had she not read the original Page FISA application, but she was also unable to recall if she had read any of the Page FISA renewals.
Anderson Defines ‘Spy’

Trump on several occasions has made reference to a spy placed within his campaign. We know the FBI used Stefan Halper as “a government informant” in relation to his contacts with Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, but the FBI has denied the use of an actual spy.

Anderson also stated she had no knowledge of a spy, but was later asked to define her understanding of the word:

Mr. Breitenbach: “Does a spy, in your mind, include a human confidential source?”

Ms. Anderson: “No.”

Mr. Breitenbach: “Does a spy include an undercover FBI employee?”

Ms. Anderson: “I don’t know.”

After more questioning, Anderson provided her reasoning in stating there had been no spy in the Trump campaign.

Ms. Anderson: “First, the word ‘spy’ did not seem commensurate with what I understood had been done in this particular case. And the other thing was the verb, the use of the verb ‘place’ a spy or ‘place’ a source within a campaign. To my knowledge, the FBI did not place anybody within a campaign but, rather, relied upon its network of sources, some of whom already had campaign contacts, including the source that has been discussed in the media at some length beyond Christopher Steele.”

Anderson was referring back to the FBI’s use of Halper.

Anderson was very careful during her testimony but, at times, her statements were contradicted by testimony from other individuals interviewed by the House committees. Her involvement in matters relating to both the Clinton and Trump–Russia investigations exceeded what had been publicly known and appears to have been at a level comparable to that of her former boss, FBI General Counsel James Baker.
Anderson Briefed Early on Weiner Laptop

Anderson was briefed by FBI attorney Sally Moyer regarding the existence of potential evidence on the laptop of former Rep. Weiner—who is married to longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin—on Sep. 29, 2016. Anderson downplayed the early notification, telling investigators that she only recalled being told that “there were materials associated with Huma Abedin that may have been identified on the laptop,” and said she had no interaction with the New York field office that was processing the Weiner laptop.

According to Anderson, her next interaction in relation to the Weiner laptop came on Oct. 27, 2016, when she had a meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on the matter—directly preceding the more formal meeting where the team working on the Clinton investigation, codenamed “Mid-Year Exam,” briefed Comey for the first time of the existence of Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop.

During the Comey briefing, Anderson said the discussion included the possibility of obtaining a search warrant—and, if so, what public statements should be made about it. Anderson also noted that she was “concerned that the disclosure of what we had was—could be viewed as affecting the outcome of the election.”

“I was concerned that, that there wasn’t, there wasn’t any form of a public statement that we could make that would not overinflate or overrepresent the significance of those emails in a way that would be unfair to an uncharged subject,” she said.
‘You Might Be Helping’ Trump

However, Comey attributed a different take to Anderson’s statement in his book, “A Higher Loyalty”:

“As we were arriving at this decision, one of the lawyers on the team asked a searing question. She was a brilliant and quiet person whom I sometimes had to invite into the conversation. ‘Should you consider that what you are about to do may help elect Donald Trump for president?’ she asked.”

Comey provided a similar recollection to the IG, telling him that Anderson said, “How do you think about the fact that you might be helping elect Donald Trump?”

Anderson acknowledged during her testimony that this specific passage from Comey’s book referred to her comments, but she also denied that she ever mentioned a specific candidate, claiming she was only concerned the FBI could be perceived as having an impact on a presidential election.

However, Anderson’s then-boss, James Baker, during interviews with the IG, sided with Comey’s recollection of the actual concerns being voiced by Anderson:

“We’re going to interject ourselves into the election in a way that’s, that potentially or almost certainly will change the outcome. And I am, I, Trisha, am quite concerned about that. And I’m concerned about us being responsible for getting Donald Trump elected.”

Anderson was asked about her recollection at several different points during her testimony. Each time, she denied she had referred to a specific candidate.
The Comey Memos

Several officials, including McCabe’s special counsel Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok, were asked about Comey’s memos and admitted to having been part of a small group that had read them. Anderson also was a member of this group:

Ms. Kim: “With regard to the Comey memos, were you one of the small group of people with whom Director Comey shared details about his conversations with President Trump contemporaneously?”

Ms. Anderson: “I was aware contemporaneously of certain of the meetings with — that Director Comey had with the President, yes.”

But there was one difference. When Anderson was asked additional questions that extended beyond her awareness of the memos, an FBI counsel immediately intervened:

Ms. Kim: “Did you generally find that Director Comey’s descriptions of these events in his written and oral testimony, and in his book, were consistent with the contemporaneous descriptions that he shared with you?”

Mr. Wellons: “May we confer with the witness, please?”

Ms. Kim: “Yes, please.”

Mr. Wellons: “Thank you.” [Discussion off the record.]

Mr. Wellons: “Thank you. The FBI is instructing the witness not to answer the last question asked or any other questions that delve into the details or contents of what are commonly referred to as the Comey memos, as we view that as evidence that pertains to the special counsel’s purview. Thank you.”

House Oversight Committee minority staff immediately objected on the grounds that the same question had been put to other witnesses who had been allowed to answer. Also noted was the fact that Comey’s memos had not only been declassified by this time, but had been released to the public. However, the FBI counsel stayed firm:

Mr. Wellons: “Thank you. The instruction stands for purposes of this line of questioning right now. If there is a particular document that has been officially declassified by the U.S. Government if you wish to show the witness, that may help move things along.”

Ms. Kim: “So, the FBI would not object to our bringing the Comey memos in and asking line by line if the witness agrees with the Director’s characterizations?”

Mr. Wellons: “We’re going to maintain the same objection at this time. I’m going to represent to you that if you have an officially declassified document by the U.S. Government, that may move things along.”

That earlier witnesses, such as Page and Strzok, were allowed to answer questions in June and July 2018, but Anderson was prevented from doing so a month later, raises questions as to what might have been uncovered during the intervening periods between the three testimonies.
Anderson Received First Call from IC Office

The Clinton email server investigation, known as the Mid-Year Exam, originated from a disclosure contained in a June 29, 2015, memo sent by the inspectors general for both the State Department and the Intelligence Community to Patrick F. Kennedy, then-undersecretary of state for management. The IGs’ memo included an assessment that Clinton’s email account contained hundreds of classified emails, despite Clinton’s claims that there was no classified information present on her server.

On July 6, 2015, the IG for the Intelligence Community made a referral to the FBI, pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act.

According to her Aug. 31, 2018, testimony, Anderson was the person that Jeannette McMillan, counsel for the Intelligence Community IG’s office, reached out to in order to determine where to send the IG’s Section 811(c) referral on Clinton. These referrals are used to “advise the FBI of any information, regardless of origin, which may indicate that classified information is being, or may have been, disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.”

Anderson immediately “looped in” Sally Moyer, also known as FBI Attorney 1 in the DOJ inspector general’s June 2018 report. Ultimately, the IG referral was sent to Randy Coleman, then-head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division.

The FBI then formally opened an investigation into the Clinton emails on July 10, 2015.

Anderson, who was asked her opinion of Clinton’s actions in the use of her server, didn’t hesitate to make her feelings known:

Ms. Anderson: “We all held a sense that—that it was a pretty stupid thing to do, that anybody who has held a security clearance, anybody who has worked in the government understands that you have—the cardinal rule that you have to do your work on a government system.

“So we all recognized from the outset that from a commonsense perspective from somebody who has worked—from the perspective of somebody who has worked in the government that it seemed like a pretty dumb thing to do.”

But Anderson also maintained—as did Page, Baker, and the others—that Clinton shouldn’t have been charged under the “gross negligence” statute, as they lacked evidence of intent.
Conflict of Interest Discussions

During her testimony, Anderson was asked about an email chain that had been originated by her, specifically a response she sent to an unknown party:

“Could you please follow up with [redacted] to get more detail about what she found on the conflict of interest component? Anything about whether there is usually an actual conflict, or have special prosecutors been appointed due to an appearance of conflict (or out of an abundance of caution)?”

Anderson claimed she couldn’t recall the specific email in question, but said that the June 2018 IG report made reference to “an intern within NSLB who was asked to look into this issue in connection with the Mid-Year case.”

Anderson made the observation that the email in question originated “from around the time of the opening of the case, and I don’t recall any of the circumstances or reasons why this research would’ve been done.” Her answer appeared to satisfy the congressional investigators, who changed topics and moved on to other questions.

However, her response seems at odds with the IG report, which specifically references the issue in question as occurring at the start of the Mid-Year Exam:

“FBI Attorney 1 told us that the FBI Mid-Year team discussed whether they needed a special counsel at the beginning of the investigation in 2015. She said that at that time they had a legal intern research the statute.”

The appointment of a special counsel is specifically predicated on a conflict of interest for the DOJ.
Discussions Regarding Lynch ‘Classified Matter’

The issue of a special counsel appointment would be revisited by the FBI team again in March 2016 and, as Strzok told the IG, the topic resurfaced, due to “the discovery of classified information relating to Lynch.” This information is contained in the fully classified appendix of the inspector general’s report.

The “classified matter” related to a Russian document the FBI had received in early 2016, which reportedly referenced an email from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then-chair of the Democratic National Committee, to Leonard Benardo, an official with the George Soros-funded group Open Society Foundations.

In the email, Wasserman Schultz reportedly claimed that former Attorney General Lynch had assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that she wouldn’t allow the FBI investigation of Clinton to “go too far.” Comey later testified that he believed the document to be genuine but was unable to corroborate the information it contained.

The ongoing discussions of Lynch’s potential conflict of interest also were referenced in an email, sent by Moyer, that mentioned “secret meetings” between Anderson and her former boss, then-FBI General Counsel Baker. Part of the email was quoted by congressional investigators during testimony by Moyer:

“All these ‘secret meetings’ that Trish and Jim are having regarding, MYE and [redacted] include George Toscas. I get that TBA might want to brainstorm with Stu on these issues (although I don’t really see how it’s in his lane). But why is George included and not our own people, especially when, if the reporting is true, there is a real conflict of interest?”

Anderson told investigators that she believed the email related to “a classified matter that’s discussed in the appendix to the IG report.” A bit later in her testimony, Anderson said she believed the email in question was referring to the classified Lynch “matter.”

Anderson’s previous tenure in the deputy attorney general’s office, where she held the positions of attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel and associate deputy attorney general, may have proved useful during the sequence of investigations. She noted that at one point, she “was more involved in meetings with DOJ when there were specific issues that came up that required high-level supervisory or executive engagement.”

Anderson described two meetings that took place at the DOJ. The first meeting, which occurred prior to the drafting of Comey’s exoneration letter of Clinton, included DOJ officials George Toscas and Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis. Attending from the FBI were McCabe; the assistant director for the cyber division, Jim Trainor; Comey’s chief of staff, James Rybicki; and Anderson.

The second meeting included Toscas, Yates, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, and DOJ official Matt Axelrod, along with Anderson, McCabe, and Rybicki. Anderson testified that Trainor, who left the FBI in late October 2016, was gone from the FBI at the time of the second meeting, placing this subsequent meeting sometime after October 2016.

Anderson later noted that the allegations against Lynch remained unverified.
‘Slightly More Than 10’

In addition to being included in the opening of the Clinton email investigation, Anderson also was part of a very small group that was aware of the Trump–Russia investigation prior to its official opening:

Ms. Kim: “So you said that you first became aware of what I’ll refer to as the Russia collusion investigation in the July 2016 timeframe. Is that correct?”

Ms. Anderson: “Correct.”

Anderson said that she, Strzok, Lisa Page, McCabe, Comey, and Baker were all aware of the investigation prior to the 2016 election. Add to that list Bill Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, Moyer, Pientka, Ohr, and Rybicki and you have a list of 12 individuals, which fits fairly well with Anderson’s testimony:

Ms. Kim: “To your knowledge, approximately how many FBI officials were aware of the existence of the Russia collusion investigation before the 2016 election?”

Ms. Anderson: “I don’t know the precise number, but it was very small.”

Ms. Kim: “I apologize for asking you to estimate. Would it be more—would it be more or fewer individuals than 10?”

Ms. Anderson: “Investigative personnel or any personnel in the FBI?”

Ms. Kim: “I will use any investigative—any investigative personnel and officials at the FBI.”

Ms. Anderson: “It was probably slightly more than 10.”
The Role of Lisa Page

Lisa Page’s unusual position as special counsel has been highlighted during several testimonies, including those of Baker and Priestap. Anderson disclosed that, technically, Page reported directly to her, but “the supervision was less clear. She reported directly to Andy McCabe as a result of the detail arrangement that we had entered into.”

Page wasn’t supposed to actually provide legal advice to McCabe, but rather bring legal issues raised by McCabe to the appropriate parties within the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. But as Anderson noted, “We didn’t have any written rules on it and it was a position that was of relatively recent creation.”

This wasn’t the first time that Page had served in a support capacity to McCabe:

Ms. Anderson: “She was—it depends—so she was—she actually served in a detail capacity to support him when he was Executive Assistant Director overseeing the National Security Branch. And I believe that was the first time such a position had been created. And she was the first Special Counsel, to my knowledge, who came from within the FBI Office of General Counsel who supported the Deputy Director. Mark Giuliano, for example, had had other lawyers supporting him, but, as I understand, they had been detailed from outside of the FBI from DOJ.”

There had been some debate within the FBI as to whether Page would hold the title of special assistant or the more coveted title of special counsel. Anderson was shown an email that appeared to be between two attorneys who reported to her. The emails appeared to be in regard to Page’s pending title discussions.

The first attorney noted, “I think his special assistant is the best option … special is the best option, he’s number 2.” The responding attorney agreed, stating: “Yeah, pretty demoralized by the whole thing. Not sure if Trisha will be there or not. Kind of hoping not, I can be more frank if she’s not.”

Anderson claimed to have no knowledge regarding this email despite repeated questioning. Page would be given the title of special counsel.

Anderson also corroborated reports that Page often circumvented the established chain of command, not only with McCabe, for whom she reportedly served as a conduit for Strzok, but also with Baker:

Ms. Anderson: “There were times when Lisa [Page] would talk directly with Jim Baker when I felt that she should be talking in the first instance directly with the attorney who reported to me.”

Anderson was also aware of concerns that Page bypassed both the executive assistant director for the National Security Branch—first Giacalone and then Steinbach—and Priestap, the head of counterintelligence:

Mr. Baker: “Did you ever hear specifically either Mr. Giacalone or Mr. Steinbach complain about the role of Lisa Page, not necessarily her role in what she had responsibility for, but because she had access to Mr. McCabe and she also would get information from Strzok, that those people, Steinbach or Giacalone and I guess Priestap to a certain extent, they would probably be the ones most affected by information not coming through them. Did you ever hear any one of them specifically complain about that?”

Ms. Anderson: “I didn’t have any—I don’t believe I heard either of them—neither of them personally complained to me, but I was aware of their concerns.”

In the summer of 2018, Anderson rejoined former Attorney General Eric Holder, when she returned to her old law firm, Covington, as a partner.

from above:

quote:

Trump on several occasions has made reference to a spy placed within his campaign. We know the FBI used Stefan Halper as “a government informant” in relation to his contacts with Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, but the FBI has denied the use of an actual spy.Anderson also stated she had no knowledge of a spy, but was later asked to define her understanding of the word:

Mr. Breitenbach: “Does a spy, in your mind, include a human confidential source?”
Ms. Anderson: “No.”

Mr. Breitenbach: “Does a spy include an undercover FBI employee?”

Ms. Anderson: “I don’t know.”

After more questioning, Anderson provided her reasoning in stating there had been no spy in the Trump campaign.Ms. Anderson: “First, the word ‘spy’ did not seem commensurate with what I understood had been done in this particular case. And the other thing was the verb, the use of the verb ‘place’ a spy or ‘place’ a source within a campaign. To my knowledge, the FBI did not place anybody within a campaign but, rather, relied upon its network of sources, some of whom already had campaign contacts, including the source that has been discussed in the media at some length beyond Christopher Steele.”Anderson was referring back to the FBI’s use of Halper.

xxxxxxxxx

what double talk. This is our FBI. An FBI confidential human source isn't a spy.

"spy" wasn't commensurate with what had been done

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it was canceling a federal grant to California worth nearly $1 billion after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the cancelation of the state’s high-speed rail project last week.

Newsom used his “State of the State” address Feb. 12 to cancel the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles project, saying it “would cost too much and, respectfully, would take too long” to complete.

However, he told legislators he wanted to complete the portion of the bullet train under construction in the rural Central Valley, lest the state lose federal dollars granted to California by President Barack Obama as part of the 2009 stimulus: “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump,” Newsom said.

The president had other ideas, and took to Twitter to demand that California return the money. Newsom rejected that demand, insisting: “This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back.”

But on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sent a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, informing it that it was terminating its agreement with the state and therefore would refuse to provide the state with $928,620,000 allocated to the high-speed rail project.

The FRA listed several factors informing its decision, including the likelihood that the high-speed rail would not be completed by 2022, as contemplated by the original agreement. The state’s high-speed rail authority had also failed, according to the FRA, to provide “timely and satisfactory financial reports” to the federal government.

The Los Angeles Times reported additionally that the Department of Transportation said it was “actively exploring every legal option” to recover the other $2.5 billion granted by the federal government to California for the project.

Newsom complained angrily that Trump was carrying out “political retribution” for California’s legal challenge Monday to his emergency declaration to build a barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border. He reiterated: “This is California’s money, and we are going to fight for it,” according to a statement quoted by the Times.


https://www.breitbart.com/poli...speed-rail-canceled/

As I see it, that money was allocated to California for a specific project, which has now been canceled. It was not a blanket gift to the state.

flashguy

I'd love to see POTUS repurpose that money towards CA part of the wall

Reallocate it for a low-speed wall.

I don't believe that I will ever tire of the winning done by OUR President Trump!!!!!!

Nice - the 404 page on the Trump / Pence campaign web site..

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21...x-returns/index.html

Federal prosecutors have charged an analyst with the Internal Revenue Service with illegally disclosing confidential reports about Michael Cohen's bank records that revealed that President Donald Trump's former lawyer had sought to profit from his proximity to the White House, according to a complaint unsealed on Thursday.

The analyst, John C. Fry, was charged with the unauthorized disclosure of a document called a suspicious activity report, which banks file when they review transactions that raise red flags.

Fry, an investigative analyst with the IRS's law enforcement arm, is accused of turning over the reports in the spring of 2018 to an attorney, Michael Avenatti, and of confirming confidential banking information in them to a reporter for The New Yorker, according to the complaint, which was filed under seal earlier this month.

On Thursday, Fry appeared before US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in federal court in San Francisco, according to the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, which charged Fry, and was released on a $50,000 bond.
In May 2018, Fry, who works in the IRS' San Francisco office, accessed and downloaded five suspicious activity reports connected to Cohen, according to the complaint. Those reports contained information about a bank account opened for Essential Consultants LLC, a shell company Cohen created, and detailed "numerous suspicious payments" from a company linked to a Russian oligarch, pharmaceutical giant Novartis, AT&T -- which owns CNN -- and others.

About 20 minutes after Fry began accessing the reports, he placed two calls to a number associated with Avenatti, the complaint says, and shortly thereafter, Fry attempted to access two other Cohen-connected suspicious activity reports that the system told him were "unavailable."

According to the complaint, several days later Fry again called Avenatti, and Avenatti subsequently "used his public Twitter account to circulate a dossier releasing confidential banking information related to Cohen and his company Essential Consultants."

In recent weeks, Fry's hearing date was pushed back several times as federal prosecutors were engaged with Fry's attorney on plea negotiations

As of Thursday, Fry declined to plead to felony charges in exchange for probation.

As a result, prosecutors will seek an indictment of Fry on February 28, this person said, and are expected to seek two additional charges, misuse of a Social Security number and misuse of a government computer.

Fry is scheduled for a preliminary hearing or arraignment on March 13, according to the US attorney's office.

Right on cue, leftists can't take a joke:



Gee, sounds like that tweet really stung, huh?