quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:

The local news stated he may sign a new Presidential Resolution as well while here

He did. Addresses expanding broadband internet service in rural areas.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...-possible-news-leaks

more indications of bad (illegal ?) actions of Strzok and Page

In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about a Wall Street Journal article and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.

“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.

“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”

The text messages, which were reviewed by the Hill, show the two FBI agents discussed how they might make it appear they innocently discovered the article, such as through Google News alerts.

“I can get it like I do every other article that hits any Google News alerts, seriously,” Strzok wrote, adding he didn’t want his team hearing about the article “from someone else.”

The Hill reviewed nearly three dozen texts in which the two agents discussed articles, tried to track down information about a specific New York Times reporter or opined about leaked information in stories that they fretted were “super specific.”

Republican investigators in both the House and Senate say the text messages suggest FBI personnel may have had media contacts but don’t necessarily prove it. So they want to learn more about what the two agents were talking about and whether any FBI officials involved in the Russia probe engaged in leaking, sources told The Hill.

FBI contacts with the media wouldn’t necessarily be improper unless they resulted in the release of confidential law enforcement information or classified information, such as the leak last February of an intercept of then-National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

The Justice Department says it currently has 27 ongoing criminal leak investigations, triple the amount of the prior three years combined.

FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment about the Strzok-Page texts, noting the Justice Department inspector general is currently investigating the messages and any political bias or other wrongdoing that may have occurred in the Russia case.

Former FBI Director James Comey, on whose watch the Russia case began, has previously testified he did not authorize or engage in leaking while in office, though he admitted arranging a leak after he was fired by President Trump last spring in hopes it would prompt a special prosecutor appointment.

Separately, the House Intelligence Committee says it has obtained information that Mueller’s current deputy in the Russia probe, respected Justice Department financial fraud prosecutor Andrew Weissman, had contact with the news media last April, shortly before Mueller was named special prosecutor, according to a letter the committee has sent the department.

In a deal with the current FBI Director Chris Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Justice officials have promised to provide the Intelligence Committee with information on the Weismann contacts later this week.

In one string of text messages just five days before Election Day 2016, Page, the lawyer, alerted Strzok, the counterintelligence agent, to a Washington Post story about a timeline in the controversial Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Page mentions a conversation she had just had with FBI chief of staff James Rybicki and openly expressed concern the information about the FBI’s timeline was too specific for comfort in the article.

“Sorry, Rybicki called. Time line article in the post (sic) is super specific and not good. Doesn’t make sense because I didn’t have specific information to give.”

A few days earlier Strzok texted Page about another new article, suggesting it was anti-FBI. “Yep, the whole tone is anti-Bu. Just a tiny bit from us,” he wrote.

Page texted she had seen the article. “ Makes me feel WAY less bad about throwing him under the bus to the forthcoming CF article ,” she texted. Congressional investigators are still trying to determine what the “CF article” reference means and who the agents thought they were trying to throw “under the bus.”

Republicans want to interview Page to determine if she assisted any “forthcoming” articles or helped another FBI employee “give” information to the news media, particularly because she helped advised then-deputy director McCabe.

Likewise, congressional investigators want to question Strzok about what he meant about the “tiny bit from us” reference.

The two agents also spent extensive time shortly before the 2016 Election trying to track down information — including an address and a spouse’s job — about New York Times reporter Matt Apuzzo, who has reported on numerous developments in the Russia case.

“We got a list of kids with their parents’ names. How many Matt Apuzzo’s (sic) could there be in DC,” Page texted. “Showed J a picture, he said he thinks he has seen a guy who kinda looks like that, but always really schlubby. I said that sounds like every reporter I have ever seen.”

A minute later, Page added another text: “Found what I think might be their address, too.”

Strzok writes back, “He’s TOTALLY schlubby. Don’t you remember?”

Page responded later by saying she found information on the reporter’s wife too. “Found address looking for her. Lawyer.”

Strzok cautions Page against using the work phone to track down information on the reporter. “I wouldn’t search on your work phone, ,,, no idea what that might trigger,” he texted.

“Oops. Too late,” she responded back.

Apuzzo declined comment when contacted on his cell phone.

After one of the presidential debates, Strzok also had an observation about then-Fox anchor and current NBC anchor Megyn Kelly. “Vaguely satisfying to see Megyn Kelly (who had Botox and looks HORRIBLE) utterly going after Trump,” he texted.

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

CF Clinton Foundation ?

this is sheer speculation on my part

think about the above texts and read this 3 Nov 2016 article in the Wash Post

It provides a "super specific" timeline about Comey

Was it Comey they threw under the bus ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.cee4fbb40bea

‘He’s got to get control of the ship again’: How tensions at the FBI will persist after the election

"On Thursday, people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that Comey had learned three weeks earlier of the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the case, but did not take action to resume the email probe until he was formally briefed last week on what investigators had found."

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...-possible-news-leaks

more indications of bad (illegal ?) actions of Strzok and Page


Strzok cautions Page against using the work phone to track down information on the reporter. “I wouldn’t search on your work phone, ,,, no idea what that might trigger,” he texted.

“Oops. Too late,” she responded back.

Corruption on my work phone, oopsie.

When does someone go to prison?

For those who cannot get enough of Trump Derangement Syndrome:

quote:

A psychiatrist who claims to have briefed more than a dozen U.S. lawmakers on President Trump’s mental state is calling for an “emergency” evaluation of the president, even restraining him by force is necessary.

In fact, she claims, failure to address President Trump’s declining mental-health state could even lead to “the extinction of the human species.”

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/psy...p/?cat_orig=politics

It's been almost 2 hours since my post above.
There was no extinction and we're all still here.
I guess the threat is over.

quote:

....... Lee insisted. “There’s everything in between: provoking our allies and alienating them, instigating civil conflict, and laying a foundation for a violent culture that could give way to epidemics of violence...

Sounds exactly what Barry was doing.

quote:

It would be hard to find a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say Trump is not dangerous,” she said.

Boy, that rings familiar. Something about no reasonable attorney could honestly prosecute?.?.?

quote:

In doing that, we are fulfilling a routine, public expectation of duty that comes with our profession — the only part that is unusual is that this is happening in the presidency. Perhaps this is reason to build in a fitness for duty, or capacity, exam for presidential candidates, just like for military officers, so that this does not happen again.

Bitch, please. Don’t be so self important. You will live a happier life.

quote:

“As more time passes, we come closer to the greatest risk of danger, one that could even mean the extinction of the human species,” she said. “This is not hyperbole. This is the reality.”

The only thing that needs to be extinct is your job.

This quack is actually trying to promote a coup and/or an assassination:

1). denigrate your opponent and call them insane and/or a "nazi".

2). stand back and hope someone tries to assassinate him.

This has already happened - Congressman Scalise.

She's one evil bitch...not stupid, just down-right evil.

She's on a dangerous path and appears to be delusional and having her own mental breakdown. Apparently her mental health crisis is that she, and her comrades, are unable to cope with the fact that Trump is the President.

Wording like "restrain by force if necessary" is a line this crowd does not want to cross - it won't work out well for them.

-------------------------------------

Her comments have been criticised by some of her peers, however. In a letter published in The New England Journal Of Medicine, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry chairman Dr Jeffrey Lieberman accused Dr Lee and her colleagues of “a misguided and dangerous morality”.

“Although moral and civic imperatives justify citizens speaking out against injustices of government and its leaders, that does not mean that psychiatrists can use their medical credentials to brand elected officials with neuropsychiatric diagnoses without sufficient evidence and appropriate circumstances,” he wrote.

“To do so undermines the profession’s integrity and credibility.

“More than any other medical specialty, psychiatry is vulnerable to being exploited for partisan political purposes and for bypassing due process for establishing guilt, fault and fact.”

Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz has also described the push by left-wing psychiatrists to remove Mr Trump as “very dangerous”.

“That’s what they did in Russia. That’s what they did in China. That’s what they did in apartheid South Africa,” he told Fox News. “How dare liberals, people on the left, try to undo democracy by accusing a president of being mentally ill without any basis.

“The 25th Amendment doesn’t apply. Everybody knew who Donald Trump was when they elected him ... he hasn’t changed in office and this idea of diagnosing him instead of opposing him politically poses an enormous danger to our democracy.”

http://www.news.com.au/finance...a40c89fd3ccdd9546fd0

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
For those who cannot get enough of Trump Derangement Syndrome:

quote:

A psychiatrist who claims to have briefed more than a dozen U.S. lawmakers on President Trump’s mental state is calling for an “emergency” evaluation of the president, even restraining him by force is necessary.

In fact, she claims, failure to address President Trump’s declining mental-health state could even lead to “the extinction of the human species.”

http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/psy...p/?cat_orig=politics

Having read the article, I have to admit that she is partially right: President Trump is extremely dangerous!!! The thing is that he isn’t dangerous to the country or the world, what he is dangerous to is the Libtards rather delicate mental (Un?) health and their ridiculous line of bullshit. The longer he remains President, the more he will show how insane their approach to running the country (into the ground) is and how far we need to keep them from any positions of power.

quote:

quote:
It would be hard to find a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say Trump is not dangerous,” she said.

Find me a single psychiatrist, no matter of what political affiliation, who could confidently say ANYONE is not dangerous IF THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY EXAMINED THAT PERSON.

Imbecile.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
The Wall vs. Path to Citizenship.

Congressional Democrats will hold the Wall funding and immigration reform hostage in exchange for a path to citizenship (read: new voters.) What do we want Trump to do? Can the Democrats stop the Wall and reform? Make a deal? Stand firm? No Wall? No immigration reform? Of course, we want him to win. But how?

Trump is pressuring the Dems by threatening to deport 200K Salvadoreans unless the Dems lower demands. Audacious.

Rush was saying yesterday that her BIO doesn't indicate any psychiatry degree at all. It says she's been trained, but the degree isn't actually listed.

She has been teaching students studying to be public defenders and to become asylum attorneys at Yale Law School since 2003.

Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
The Wall vs. Path to Citizenship.

Congressional Democrats will hold the Wall funding and immigration reform hostage in exchange for a path to citizenship (read: new voters.) What do we want Trump to do? Can the Democrats stop the Wall and reform? Make a deal? Stand firm? No Wall? No immigration reform? Of course, we want him to win. But how?

Trump is pressuring the Dems by threatening to deport 200K Salvadoreans unless the Dems lower demands. Audacious.

I really love the way this man works. Give em hell President Trump!

That woman is exceedingly evil. What should happen is that her employer fire her.

Send em back to El Salvador

Just a short list of actions the left thinks are not dangerous.

If Trump:

Had all his school transcripts and health records sealed - he would not be considered dangerous.

Was an acquaintance of know weather underground communist revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers - he would not be considered dangerous.

Had a SSN from a state he never lived or worked in - he would not be considered dangerous.

Campaigned in all 57 states - he would not be considered dangerous.

Had to have a reporter correct him on his muslim, err Christian faith - he would not be considered dangerous.

Was raised by communists in Hawaii and Indonesia - he would not be considered dangerous.

Fired 200 of America's top military leaders - he would not be considered dangerous.

Got blow jobs in the oval office from a 21 year old intern, some during phone meetings with foreign leaders - he would not be considered dangerous.

Had a history of rape and sexual abuse of women he came in contact with - he would not be considered dangerous.

Lied under oath in a federal lawsuit leading to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice - he would not be considered dangerous.

Had a 50+ body count of suspicious deaths surrounding his career - he would not be considered dangerous.

Had a 500 million dollar charity foundation in his name, receiving large donations from foreign governments, that appears more like a slush fund - he would not be considered dangerous.

Received $500K for a speech in Moscow - he would not be considered dangerous.

Had 30K confidential emails on his personal server - he would not be considered dangerous.

Drove a female intern off a bridge and left her to drown - he would not be considered dangerous.

The list is endless, you get the idea.

Just watching a bit of the live "roundtable bi-partisan" discussion in Fox News.
Diane Feinstein says we need a "stand lone" DACA bill and THEN we can deal with a new "comprehensive" immigration bill.
RIGHT?
Translation: Give amnesty to all these childerins (some in the 40's) and then we will talk about the other stuff.....maybe.
Same old shit from the dems.
A least Trump said "sure we can have that bill WITH security {wall/chain migration/etc}".