quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
It is a good feeling when you are on the side that is fighting to reveal the truth and shine a bright light into dark corners that are threateningly defended.

Can't wait til the truth is so evident that these guys are forced to put it on their front pages. The irony will be spectacular.

https://twitter.com/benjaminwi...s/998259993819394049

Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare (Comey's friend) tweets out a response to President Trump:

I normally ignore presidential tweets. This one requires attention, because it could genuinely produce a crisis with the Justice Department and the FBI. Here’s an explanatory thread that may (or may not) be useful

The President in this tweet announces that he will tomorrow formally demand of the Justice Department a specific investigation—to wit, one about whether the DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign and if the Obama administration demanded such action of them

There is no doubt that he has the constitutional authority to make this demand.

There is also no doubt in my mind that neither the attorney general (who is recused anyway) nor the deputy attorney general nor the FBI director can in good conscience comply with such an order. And I don’t believe they will

This is a nakedly corrupt attempt on the part of the President to derail an investigation of himself at the expense of a human source to whose protection the FBI and DOJ are committed.

that would be Stefan Halper who is the most famous spy in the world at the moment

So if the President really gives Rod Rosenstein or Chris Wray an order (as opposed to Twitter bluster) demanding a particular investigation not properly predicated under FBI/DOJ guidelines for this overtly political purpose, I believe both men will resign rather than comply

and the problem would be ?

In other words, this tweet is different from other Trump craziness tweets. It’s one that promises a specific action on a specific date (tomorrow) with respect to a specific agency that will, if it takes place, precipitate a showdown

Trump is a wuss, so he may well back down. He was going to fire Rosenstein, and he wussed out. He was going to fire Mueller and he wussed out. So I don’t want to overstate this. There’s lots of ways this could peter out. But this tweet is no joke

that's a good one. wuss. right

As Quinta and I wrote yesterday, “Don’t underestimate this episode. It will have a long tail and big consequences—all of them terrible.” Those consequences, if you believe the President, may start tomorrow.

Eyes open people

That’s all I got

you don't have crap and you are full of it

“More than two-thirds of Americans credit President Donald Trump for the country’s healthy economy, a new poll has revealed.

The CBS News poll, which was released on Sunday, shows a sharp partisan divide, with Republicans more likely to give the president positive reviews while Democrats and Independents are not as complimentary…”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...booming-economy.html

Federalist

Rather than vindicate the FBI, this raises the specter that the FBI extensively targeted Trump campaign officials before its official launch of Crossfire Hurricane.

What we know about federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ spying on the Donald Trump campaign likely represents but a sliver of their covert activities. But it’s about time we do, and President Trump is right to demand an investigation. Here’s what we know so far.

In the run-up to the presidential election, on July 31, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) opened a “counterintelligence investigation” to probe whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to influence the election. Over the last two weeks, in a series of articles, The New York Times and Washington Post revealed that the investigation, dubbed operation Crossfire Hurricane, involved a government informant connected to the Trump campaign.

On Friday, the Washington Post reported more details of the informant’s “months-long pattern of seeking out and meeting three different Trump campaign officials.” The presumed informant, a professor with contacts with both the Central Intelligence Agency and MI6, first met with Carter Page, then a foreign policy advisor for Trump’s campaign, at a conference in Cambridge in July 2016. He met Page several more times before the election.

According to the Washington Post, the informant also met in the late summer “with Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis,” offering “to provide foreign-policy expertise to the Trump effort.” Then in September, the informant “reached out to George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign-policy adviser for the campaign, inviting him to London to work on a research paper.”

The Investigation’s Timing Is Under Scrutiny

The timing of the informant’s initial encounter with Page proves significant because that meeting occurred before the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane. That detail proves the raison d’être for the Washington Post’s Friday article because, with reporters already cracking the identity of the informant from the Post’s earlier articles, it would not be long before someone highlighted that early July meeting. For the last several weeks, the few members of the press bothering to report on the Obama administration’s targeting of the Trump campaign have questioned the FBI’s contention that it first launched its investigation into the Trump campaign in late July 2017.

The Washington Post gives cover to the revelation that the sting began earlier: “The FBI commonly uses sources and informants to gather evidence and its regulations allow for use of informants even before a formal investigation has been opened. In many law enforcement investigations, the use of sources and informants precedes more invasive techniques such as electronic surveillance.”

All true. But for the last two years the FBI maintained first that it did not spy on the Trump campaign and second that it only launched its “investigation” in late July 2016, after Australian officials informed the FBI that in May 2016 George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, blabbed to Alexander Downer, Australia’s ambassador to Britain, that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times promoted this narrative based on the “direct knowledge of the Australian’s role” by “four current and former American and foreign officials.” The storyline went that Downer only realized the import of Papadopoulos’ May revelation after WikiLeaks released emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee server in late July, precipitating the July 31, 2016, start of Crossfire Hurricane. Clearly, the insiders intended to create the impression that the FBI’s interest in the Trump campaign stemmed from legitimate concerns its allies had relayed.

Sometimes the FBI Investigates Before Its Investigation

But now we know that the FBI used the term “investigation” in a technical sense, not a colloquial one. Rather than vindicate the FBI, this raises the specter that the FBI extensively targeted Trump campaign officials before its official launch of Crossfire Hurricane.

There are a lot of possibilities, because under the attorney general’s guidelines the FBI may use extensive “information gathering activities” before launching an official “investigation.” Under the guidelines, the FBI may make an “assessment” “to obtain information about” a potential threat to national security.

At the assessment stage, the FBI may “seek information, proactively or in response to investigative leads,” “identify[] and obtain[] information about potential targets of or vulnerabilities to criminal activities . . . or threats to national security,” “seek[] information to identify potential human sources,” and “obtain[] information to inform or facilitate intelligence analysis.”

During the assessment phase, beyond obtaining publicly available information and using online resources, the FBI may “access and examine FBI and other Department of Justice records” and “request information from other federal, state, local, or tribal, or foreign governmental entities or agencies.” The FBI may also “use and recruit human sources,” “accept information voluntarily provided by governmental or private entities,” and “engage in observation or surveillance not requiring a court order.”

In addition to the one known informant, did the FBI use other informants or sources? Did the FBI reach out to foreign governmental entities or agencies? Did the FBI tail the Trump campaign staff, Trump organization employees, or his family? Did the FBI accept information about Trump and his campaign team from other foreign governments or private entities?

There’s Evidence It Did At Least Some of These

We already know that in late June or early July, an FBI agent stationed in Rome flew to London to meet with Christopher Steele, the former MI6 spook who in October provided the FBI with the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded “Steele dossier.” When Steele met with the FBI agent in the early summer, he provided information that the “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years” and that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”

Steele added that former top Russian intelligence officers claimed the FSB (the Russian intelligence agency) had compromising information on Trump (related to the “golden showers”) and “a dossier of compromising material on Hillary Clinton,” which had not yet been distributed abroad or to Trump. However, according to Steele’s memo, “the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

Further, by the time the FBI officially launched Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, Steele had completed nearly half of the reports contained in the later-compiled Steele dossier. Had Steele previously relayed this information to the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, or his former MI6 colleagues? Did those uncorroborated—and now disproven—details prompt the FBI to initiate Crossfire Hurricane?

The Curious Case of Joseph Mifsud

The circumstances surrounding Trump foreign policy advisor Papadopoulos likewise raise several disconcerting coincidences. In early March, just one week after Papadopoulos spoke with Trump campaign co-chair Clovis and learned he would serve as a foreign-policy advisor to Trump but before the announcement was made public, Papadopoulos crossed paths with a Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, while both were traveling in Rome.

Mifsud professed to have many Russian contacts, and immediately took Papadopoulos under his wing, arranging for Papadopoulos to join Mifsud’s London-based think tank as a director of international energy. Mifsud later introduced Papadopoulos to two individuals purportedly connected to Russia and Vladimir Putin, and fed Papadopoulos information he relayed to the campaign.

While Mifsud’s surface credential seemed well-established—he also ran the London Academy of Diplomacy—following Papadopoulos’ indictment for lying to the FBI about his connections and conversations to Mifsud, Mifsud’s story changed dramatically. He then declared he had “absolutely no contact with the Russian government.”

Mifsud, who spoke at a U.S. State Department-sponsored event in January 2017, also claimed that while in DC for the conference he spoke with the FBI. The FBI, however, did not expel Mifsud from the United States, or arrest him for spying for Russia or interfering with the election. Then, nine months later, Mifsud went missing from Rome.

Further, as I explained last week, Mifsud’s close friendship with Gianni Pittella, a well-known Italian member of the European Parliament, who later campaigned in Pennsylvania for Hillary Clinton, raises the prospect that the coincidental meeting in Rome was nothing of the sort. Was Mifsud another informant who purposefully sought Papadopoulos in March 2016 to feed him information about Russia to entrap members of the Trump campaign?

What If This Set the Stage for Deeper Spy Work?

All of this could have taken place before the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2018. Then, after initiating a formal investigation, the FBI held even broader authority to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign. Once the FBI launches a full-blown investigation, agents have the authority to conduct undercover operations and issue National Security Letters (NSL). The FBI may issue NSL without court approval.

With these administrative subpoenas, agents may obtain detailed information about targeted individuals from communications providers, financial institutions, consumer credit agencies, and travel agencies. While we do not know how many NSLs the FBI used to target individuals connected with the Trump campaign or Trump organization, or when the FBI issued the NSLs, The New York Times confirmed last week that they were used in Crossfire Hurricane.

Additionally, following the launching of an investigation, the FBI may seek to use pen registers, trap and trace devices, electronic surveillance, and physical searches, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We know the FBI used these investigative methods beginning, at the latest, in October 2016, when the Obama Department of Justice obtained the first of four secret FISA court orders to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. While Page was no longer associated with the Trump campaign when the FISC court issued the order, as former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy has explained, this order also allowed the government to review prior communications between Page and campaign officials.

Further, from the court filings in the special counsel’s case against Papadopoulos, we know the FBI obtained a court order to search Papadopoulos’ email and Facebook accounts. This search allowed the FBI to review communications between Papadopoulos and Trump’s inner circle. We do not know when this court-ordered search took place or the factual predicate for the search.

We also know that following Trump’s surprise victory, but before his inauguration, the Obama administration listened in on a telephone call between Michael Flynn, Trump’s newly named national security advisor, and the Russian ambassador. What we don’t know is whether the government had tapped Flynn’s phone or intercepted the calls as part of normal surveillance of Russian officials. We also don’t know whether other members of the Trump campaign, transitional team, or current members of the administration were also targeted by the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency. But it’s about time we do.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

you don't have crap and you are full of it

That's a fact, Jack.

quote:

Originally posted by
This is a nakedly corrupt attempt on the part of the President to derail an investigation of himself at the expense of a human source to whose protection the FBI and DOJ are committed.

We don't investigate people we investigate crimes. The lefts attitude is based on the belief Trump is guilty of something so the end justify the means.

^^^ Haha, that's perfect.

As the MSM melts down this morning, I give you this:

Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge, was attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...ls-debates/35157745/

It sounds harmless to suggest that the Mueller investigation be allowed more time to finish its work. But is it?

Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign had gotten help unlawfully from Russia.

Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if

(i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and

(ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.

Rod Rosenstein — took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.

Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it.

reportedly he has now shown the federal judge the complete 2 Aug appointment memo

Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump campaign’s criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians. The one indictment that relates to Russian criminality charges that the Russians hacked Democratic Party computers and committed other social media abuse, but says specifically that if the Trump campaign got the benefit of it, that was “unwitting” — i.e., without criminal intent.

Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, however fascinating, have nothing to do with Russian campaign influence.

What’s the harm in letting it go on?

First, the law requires that a special counsel investigate a specified crime based on specified facts, not try to be the second coming of the Lone Ranger.

But further, the ongoing investigation saps the resources and attention of the Trump administration. If the administration cannot function, the burden of this constantly shifting investigation will give rise to a narrative that any failure was due to the Mueller diversion — that the Trump administration was stabbed in the back. That is potentially more damaging to our politics than any salaciousness that might be tossed up by Robert Mueller.

For both legal and political reasons, the end of this investigation is overdue.

Watchin' da preezy make it look easy at Haspell's swearing-in ceremony.

It doesn't matter to me that the best person to head this agency is a female, but so many people live and die by such things, and I wonder how very little acknowledgment of this "milestone" will be given by the Trump haters.

But, oh, if Hillary appointed some woman, it would be the GREATEST THING EVER.

quote:

But, oh, if Hillary appointed some woman, it would be the GREATEST THING EVER.

Thankfully, we'll never know.

quote:

Trump turns up heat on Obama, Brennan amid claims his presidential campaign may have been infiltrated

The president sought to turn the tables on the Obama administration after demanding a probe into whether his predecessor's FBI got inside his 2016 campaign, asking what then-President Obama knew about the operation.

Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.

I believe he knows the answer.

quote:

Trump turns up heat on Obama, Brennan amid claims his presidential campaign may have been infiltrated

The president sought to turn the tables on the Obama administration after demanding a probe into whether his predecessor's FBI got inside his 2016 campaign, asking what then-President Obama knew about the operation.

What was it that brought down Nixon?
Oh, ya... it was spying on the campaign of his political opponent. And the cover up, of spying on the campaign of his political opponent.

Obama is no longer President, thank God, but it's not too late to indict members of the Obama administration.

There are a handful of Democrats who see this witch hunt is going nowhere and has become a liability to the Democrat party.

May 21, 2018
An honest Democrat savages Deep State, Mueller probe

By Thomas Lifson

Today's read of the day comes from a Democrat who has broken with the corruptocrats leading his party to ruin.

Mark Penn was Bill Clinton's pollster and adviser during his presidency, including during his impeachment. He is also a passionate critic of the Deep State's attempts to unseat or at minimum delegitimize Donald Trump as president. In his latest column his latest column for the Hill, Penn lays out with passion the stakes for all Americans.

Here is a sample:

The "deep state" is in a deep state of desperation. With little time left before the Justice Department inspector general's report becomes public, and with special counsel Robert Mueller having failed to bring down Donald Trump after a year of trying, they know a reckoning is coming.

At this point, there is little doubt that the highest echelons of the FBI and the Justice Department broke their own rules to end the Hillary Clinton "matter," but we can expect the inspector general to document what was done or, more pointedly, not done. It is hard to see how a year-long investigation of this won't come down hard on former FBI Director James Comey and perhaps even former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who definitely wasn't playing mahjong in a secret "no aides allowed" meeting with former President Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac. ...

Flush with 16 prosecutors, including a former lawyer for the Clinton Foundation, and an undisclosed budget, the Mueller investigation has been a scorched-earth effort to investigate the entirety of the Trump campaign, Trump business dealings, the entire administration and now, if it was not Russia, maybe it's some other country.

The president's earlier legal team was naive in believing that, when Mueller found nothing, he would just end it. Instead, the less investigators found, the more determined and expansive they became. This president and his team now are on a better road to put appropriate limits on all this.

This process must now be stopped, preferably long before a vote in the Senate. Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again.

Like Pat Caddell, Doug Schoen, and a few other Democrat sages, Mark Penn sees the dead end the party he has worked for most of his adult life is hurtling toward.

https://www.americanthinker.co...e_mueller_probe.html

Enough wth the Goddamned leaks. Let's get on with it.

The report will say this. The report will say that. FINE. Release the Goddamned thing. Stop telling us what it will say and let us see it, for God's sake!

IG report on Clinton case expected to hit FBI leaders for sitting on emails in 2016

That's at least the second leak about this report. Come on already. No one in Washington- NO ONE- has the slightest sense of urgency in ANYTHING they do and it is beginning to piss me off. We have been as patient as we can be and now IT'S TIME TO GET ON WITH IT!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a Debby Downer but just realistic that nothing, even if it's shown the FBI and their ilk tried to spy on the Trump campaign at the direction of the White House, will come of it.

There are so many things the current DOJ could do however nothing is done. No one prosectued Holder when he was found in contempt of Congress and while there are political considerations, even in this climate we are years away from:

Bad conduct>thorough investigation>IG or Special Counsel>charges or indictment>pleas or guilty verdicts>sentances with a message attached to it.

I think the last one was Scooter Libby and that was a procedural crime however this is much serious than Watergate and heads need to roll but is anyone in Washington gone to see this through? Doubtful.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm not a Debby Downer but just realistic that nothing, even if it's shown the FBI and their ilk tried to spy on the Trump campaign at the direction of the White House, will come of it.

For fuck's sake. Do yourself a favor and be quiet. I swear to God, I cannot get away from the defeatist bullshit.

What is wrong with some of you guys?? It's as if you WANT to lose.

What do you guys get out of all this defeatist talk???? Do you feel better after you've spread some of that shit around?? Good grief.

National Review
Andrew McCarthy

On Sunday, President Trump tweeted a “demand” that the Justice Department investigate political spying in the 2016 campaign. This replays the political-spying controversy that surfaced in late February. Right now, the issue involves the Obama administration’s use of at least one confidential informant — a spy — to snoop into the opposition party’s presidential campaign; back in February, the issue was the Obama administration’s electronic surveillance — by FISA eavesdropping warrants — for the same purpose.

Just as he did last time, Attorney General Jeff Sessions responded to the president’s agitation by referring the political-spying issue to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. This was the right thing — or, at least, a right thing — to do. Our editorial regarding the previous case explained the guiding principles:

When there are allegations of wrongdoing by Justice Department or FBI officials, federal law and Justice Department protocols require an internal investigation by the units that exist for that purpose — the Office of the Inspector General or the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Sessions was correct to comply with these standards. Arguably, a referral to OPR, rather than the IG, may be warranted. Under federal law, OPR has jurisdiction over allegations of misconduct involving “the exercise of authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.” There is no doubt, though, that evidence of official malfeasance must be referred to one of these offices. Given that OPR reports directly to the attorney general, while the IG reports to both the attorney general and Congress, Sessions may well have calculated that the IG referral would have more credibility.

These same principles apply now, in the wake of last week’s disclosure that the FBI, under circumstances that remain obscure, used a longtime CIA informant to establish ties with and pry information from three Trump campaign officials, beginning in July 2016.

To elaborate, the president’s Sunday tweet demanded that the Justice Department “look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes,” including whether such monitoring was pushed by “people within the Obama administration!” Trump vowed to follow up this tweet with a more formal directive today.

Attorney General Sessions did not announce a referral of the new spying allegations to Horowitz until after the president’s tweet. I suspect the attorney general waited because he believed a public announcement was unnecessary. The newly disclosed spying allegations are so closely tied to the FISA-abuse allegations addressed several weeks back that they are obviously within the scope of investigations Sessions has already ordered.

I am sympathetic to Sessions’s obvious desire to restore norms that the FBI and Justice Department resist speaking publicly about ongoing investigations. But here, he needs to be public and vigorous about his determination to get to the bottom of what happened. The Justice Department has stonewalled congressional requests for information in connection with the Russia investigation (from which Sessions recused himself). Sessions needs to assert himself, making clear that the Department will scrutinize credible allegations of political spying and will cooperate with congressional committees. With his top subordinate, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, likening congressional oversight to “extortion,” the boss needs to do more.

President Trump is right to order that action be taken. And unlike in the last brouhaha over FISA surveillance, the president did not imply that a referral to the inspector general would be problematic. As we observed in the March 1 editorial, Horowitz “has earned a reputation for probity and fact-driven independence.” As we await his much-anticipated report on the FBI’s performance in the Clinton-emails investigation, it should be noted that, since our editorial, Horowitz has issued a comprehensive report on the misconduct of the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, which resulted in a criminal referral. (See my April 21 column, here.)

Predictably, knee-jerk Trump critics are exercised over the president’s giving an order to the Justice Department, claiming political interference in law-enforcement. Quite apart from the fact that the Justice Department is subordinate to the chief executive in our constitutional system, the criticism overlooks two distinctions we have repeatedly stressed, between (a) counterintelligence and criminal investigations, and (b) official misconduct and ordinary crime.

Though carried out by executive officials (i.e., investigators and prosecutors), criminal investigations are governed by congressional penal statutes and overseen by the courts. By contrast, counterintelligence is an investigative activity undertaken entirely in support of the president’s constitutional responsibility to protect the nation from foreign threats. It is not “interference in law-enforcement” when the president directs the Justice Department and FBI to take action in connection with their counterintelligence mission, and to ensure that this mission is being conducted properly. If counterintelligence authorities were exploited to spy on a political campaign in the absence of strong evidence that the political campaign was in a traitorous conspiracy with a hostile foreign power, that would be a major abuse of power. The buck stops with the president, and he has a duty to see that this question is investigated.

Moreover, presidents do not entirely delegate to inferior executive officers their responsibility for running the executive branch. When we say there must not be political interference in law enforcement, we mean that the political leadership of the executive branch should allow criminal cases against those suspected or accused of crimes to proceed under the controlling constitutional and statutory provisions; we want it to be clear that Americans are protected by the rule of law, not threatened by the whims of politics. On the other hand, the president is accountable for the actions of the executive branch — including malfeasance. If there are credible allegations of misconduct by executive-branch officials, the president has a duty to ensure that action is taken. He is not obliged to stand by idly until the Justice Department announces that it will investigate.

Finally, as we’ve emphasized before, there is nothing inconsistent in both calling for an inspector-general probe and directing that Justice Department prosecutors investigate allegations of official misconduct. The latter must be done here, as it is being done in connection with FISA-abuse allegations.

In a March 29 letter to chairmen of three relevant congressional committees, Attorney General Sessions explained that he had assigned Utah U.S. attorney John W. Huber to investigate actions and decisions by federal prosecutors and the FBI in connection with the 2016 election and its aftermath — including possible FISA abuse. This was in response to calls by some in Congress for the appointment of a special counsel (i.e., a second one, in addition to Robert Mueller). The assignment of a well-respected Justice Department prosecutor is preferable to the appointment of a special counsel — an institution with a history of excess and abuse.


In his letter, Sessions explained that the misconduct allegations raised by the committee chairmen fell “within the scope of [Huber’s] existing mandate.” That being the case, it is virtually certain that the new allegations of political spying, which arise out of the same counterintelligence probe against the Trump campaign that resulted in the controversial FISA surveillance, would also fall within Huber’s investigative jurisdiction.

Lest there be any doubt about the matter, though, Attorney General Sessions should be proactive: Make a public announcement that U.S. attorney Huber is on the case, perhaps in the form of a publicly released letter to update the same congressional committee chairmen. No need to wait for a tweet from on high.

Link

I wish Christopher Wray would appreciate the mammoth job he has in front of him.

The FBI reputation has been torn to shreds. Many of the traditional people who respected the FBI and considered it to be one of our most honest and trusted govt organizations, now see an organization that tried (is trying ?) to overturn our Nov 2016 election.

They are slow walking all documents. Not cooperating with Congress. How long do you think Rosenstein could resist if Wray came out publicly and said such & such a document should be released?

As much as I want it to be, Wray is not on a visible public crusade to win back the public trust.

It is possible to win it back. But we need to see an FBI director who is the opposite of Comey and Brennan.

He has to show us the same determination and intensity to expose the truth as Robert Mueller displays to frame the president and ruin every persons' life that he ensnares.