Is it my lack of attention or have Hillary and Obama been unusually quiet of late?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Is it my lack of attention or have Hillary and Obama been unusually quiet of late?

They have, but you know the POS are scheming something. Maybe Hillary’s replacement/takeover of POTUS. Or, maybe life in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Is it my lack of attention or have Hillary and Obama been unusually quiet of late?

They have, but you know the POS are scheming something. Maybe Hillary’s replacement/takeover of POTUS. Or, maybe life in prison.

It may be trying to figure how to characterize chardonnay purchases as charitable disbursements from the Foundation.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Is it my lack of attention or have Hillary and Obama been unusually quiet of late?

They have, but you know the POS are scheming something. Maybe Hillary’s replacement/takeover of POTUS. Or, maybe life in prison.

It may be trying to figure how to characterize chardonnay purchases as charitable disbursements from the Foundation.

Haha you said "it".

good article by Andrew McCarthy

He admits the Grassley memo rocked him

http://www.nationalreview.com/...-fisa-steele-dossier

Grassley-Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo — Media Yawns

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...-fisa-steele-dossier

With its verification by the Grassley-Graham memo, the Nunes memo now has about a thousand times more corroboration than the Steele dossier,

the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge.

In his anti-Trump research, Steele could not verify his sources. Furthermore, he was now a former foreign intelligence officer who was then working for private clients — which is the advocacy business, not the search-for-truth business.

No actual FBI agent, no matter how renowned, would be able to get a judicial warrant based solely on his own reliability as an investigator

The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.

more at article

Bruce Ohr, the Department of Justice official who brought opposition research on President Donald Trump to the FBI, did not disclose that Fusion GPS, which performed that research at the Democratic National Committee’s behest, was paying his wife, and did not obtain a conflict of interest waiver from his superiors at the Justice Department, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The omission may explain why Ohr was demoted from his post as associate deputy attorney general after the relationship between Fusion GPS and his wife emerged and Fusion founder Glenn Simpson acknowledged meeting with Ohr. Willfully falsifying government ethics forms can carry a penalty of jail time, if convicted.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired Fusion GPS to gather and disseminate damning info about Trump, and they in turn paid Nellie Ohr, a former CIA employee with expertise in Russia, for an unknown role related to the “dossier.” Bruce Ohr then brought the information to the FBI, kicking off a probe and a media firestorm.

The DOJ used it to obtain a warrant to wiretap a Trump adviser, but didn’t disclose to the judge that the DNC and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign had funded the research and that Ohr had a financial relationship with the firm that performed it — which could be, it turns out, because Ohr doesn’t appear to have told his supervisors. Some have suggested that the financial payments motivated Bruce Ohr to actively push the case.

For 2014 and 2015, Bruce Ohr disclosed on ethics forms that his wife was an “independent contractor” earning consulting fees. In 2016, she added a new employer who paid her a “salary,” but listed it vaguely as “cyberthreat analyst,” and did not say the name of the company.

The instructions require officials to “Provide the name of your spouse’s employer. In addition, if your spouse’s employer is a privately held business, provide the employer’s line of business.” As examples, it gives “Xylophone Technologies Corporation” and “DSLK Financial Techniques, Inc. (financial services).” The dollar amount does not need to be disclosed. “Report each source, whether a natural person or an organization or entity, that provided your spouse more than $1,000 of earned income during the reporting period,” they say.

The DOJ says, “Financial disclosure reports are used to identify potential or actual conflicts of interest. If the person charged with reviewing an employee’s report finds a conflict, he should impose a remedy immediately.” Its guidance says, “Employees should always seek the advice of an ethics official when contemplating any action that may be covered by the rules.”

Paul Kamenar, a Washington, D.C., public policy lawyer experienced in executive branch ethics and disclosure laws, said, “Based on my reading of the regulations and disclosure guide accompanying the form, he failed to disclose the source of his wife’s income on line 4 by not including the ‘name of the employer.'”

“The law provides that whoever ‘knowingly and willfully’ fails to file information required to be filed on this report faces civil penalties up to $50,000 and possible criminal penalties up to one year in prison under the disclosure law and possibly up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001,” he said. “Since he lists her income type as ‘salary’ as opposed to line 1 where he describes her other income as ‘consulting fees’ as an ‘independent contractor’ it’s clear that she was employed by a company that should have been identified by name.”

“And even with respect to her ‘independent contractor’ listing, it appears incomplete by not describing what kind of services were provided. Both these omissions do not give the reviewing official sufficient information to determine whether there is a conflict,” Kamenar added.

Ohr also did not get a conflict of interest waiver from his supervisors, suggesting that he may not have explained to anyone the true source of the income and how it intersected with his official involvement in the case, nor did he have approval.

If a potential conflict is disclosed and explained to supervisors, a government agency can grant a conflict of interest waiver, known as a 208(b) waiver. In response to a records request, officials told TheDCNF, “There are no … waivers for this filer.”

Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, said “he couldn’t get a waiver for that. That would have required outright refusal.” Making it potentially even worse than failing to recuse, Ohr’s pressing the Trump case appears to be something he decided to do on his own, rather than something assigned to him.

Bruce Ohr was demoted from his DOJ position shortly after the company’s founder acknowledged in a Nov. 14, 2017, interview with the House Intelligence Committee that he had met with him. Fox News reported in December that Ohr had concealed his meetings with the firm from his supervisors.

The form says, “[F]alsification of information required to be filed by section 102 of the [Ethics in Government Act of 1978] may also subject you to criminal prosecution” as well as “civil monetary penalty and to disciplinary action by your employing agency.”

The lack of disclosure is the latest of several examples of people apparently trying to conceal the financial relationship that Fusion GPS, which was funded by the DNC, had with the family of the DOJ official.

In Fusion GPS founder Simpson’s November House interview, he conspicuously omitted his relationship with Nellie Ohr, painting Bruce Ohr as someone who he was connected to independently. Investigators said, “You’ve never heard from anyone in the U.S. Government in relation to those matters, either the FBI or the Department of Justice?”

“I was asked to provide some information … by a prosecutor named Bruce Ohr,” he said.

Investigators said, “Did Mr. Ohr reach out to you?”

“It was someone that Chris Steele knows … and I met Bruce too through organized crime conferences or something like that … Chris told me that he had been talking to Bruce … and that Bruce wanted more information, and suggested that I speak with Bruce,” Simpson said.

Simpson also said his firm was not affiliated with any Russian speakers, even though Nellie Ohr appears to speak the language.

In addition to meeting with Simpson, Ohr also met with Steele before the election.

In an earlier Aug. 22, 2017, interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Simpson didn’t mention either of the Ohrs by name. He said he had not met with any FBI officials about the matter, without noting his contact with the DOJ official.

Simpson suggested in court records on Dec. 12, 2017, that the only way government investigators could have found out about Nellie Ohr’s relationship with the company was through its bank records. “Bank records reflect that Fusion contracted with Nellie Ohr, a former government official expert in Russian matters, to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump. I am not aware of any other sources from which the committee or the media could have learned of this information,” he said.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has been critical of the department’s handling of the Trump investigation, said, “This document ought to trigger an immediate criminal investigation if one isn’t already ongoing.”

Kathleen Clark, an ethics expert and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said beyond the disclosure issue, as far as the legal definition of conflict of interest requiring a recusal, it could depend on whether Ohr’s actions would have had a “direct and predictable” effect on his wife’s income from Fusion GPS.

Kamenar said what is known as the frequently used “catch-all” provision clearly applies, saying “Circumstances… would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee’s impartiality” require recusal.

Amey said, “As a lawyer and a top Justice official, Ohr should know that he can’t participate in anything related to his wife’s work … Ohr should have been upfront about his wife’s employment and not touched anything related to Steele, the dossier, and Fusion GPS.” The DOJ’s judgment is only as good as the information volunteered to them by Ohr, he said, and because he didn’t list the name of his wife’s employer, they likely had no reason to suspect it might have impacted his work.

Walter Schaub, a former government ethics czar who is an expert on the forms and resigned after offering sharp criticisms of Trump, declined repeated requests to weigh in on Ohr.

Bruce Ohr did not return a request for comment, nor did the DOJ.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Bruce Ohr did not return a request for comment, nor did the DOJ.

Link

Nothing to say? Did someone grab you by the tongue?

You all sure have been chatty and leaky until you got caught...

quote:

“The law provides that whoever ‘knowingly and willfully’ fails to file information required to be filed on this report faces civil penalties up to $50,000 and possible criminal penalties up to one year in prison under the disclosure law and possibly up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001,” he said. “Since he lists her income type as ‘salary’ as opposed to line 1 where he describes her other income as ‘consulting fees’ as an ‘independent contractor’ it’s clear that she was employed by a company that should have been identified by name.”

Somebody needs to be indicted, maybe serve some jail time... unless maybe he's willing to start talking....

I wonder what happened to Nunes demand that Ohr, Strzok, and Page testify to his committee ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I wonder what happened to Nunes demand that Ohr, Strzok, and Page testify to his committee ?

My impression is that the FBI is refusing.

Maybe it is more complicated than that.

About Ohr...

This is a pretty good read.

https://theconservativetreehou...nd-its-not-congress/

It makes some great points about the lack of free-flying information.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
About Ohr...

This is a pretty good read.

https://theconservativetreehou...nd-its-not-congress/

It makes some great points about the lack of free-flying information.

You caught me linking the same thing. Very interesting!

This is starting to read like a John Le Carre' novel.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I wonder what happened to Nunes demand that Ohr, Strzok, and Page testify to his committee ?

My impression is that the FBI is refusing.

Maybe it is more complicated than that.

The reason is the desire of the Executive Branch to not be at the beck and call of Congress (i.e., "you ain't the boss of me").

There is a solution... President Trump directs them to testify fully and truthfully.

Then, the criminal cabal would either appear or be subject to dismissal for insubordination. If they don't appear they can be held in contempt of Congress.

If they do appear, they'll do a Lerner and take the 5th.

Then we will all know what criminals they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If they don't appear they can be held in contempt of Congress.

And of course that'll have them quaking in their boots. They really fear the toothless threat. Last time someone in government was accused of that terrible breach, the DOJ did nothing. Kind of like the current DOJ. What was the micreant's name? OH, it was the head of the DOJ himself, Eric Holder. So its really a hollow threat. One that wouldn't even get reported by the all knowing media.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
If they don't appear they can be held in contempt of Congress.

And of course that'll have them quaking in their boots. They really fear the toothless threat. Last time someone in government was accused of that terrible breach, the DOJ did nothing. Kind of like the current DOJ. What was the micreant's name? OH, it was the head of the DOJ himself, Eric Holder. So its really a hollow threat. One that wouldn't even get reported by the all knowing media.

True, but should Sessions refuse to act, he too can then be dismissed for a matter related only tangentially to the Russia Collusion Fantasy.

Then we could bring BurtonRW in as AG.

quote:

Then we could bring BurtonRW in as AG.

Jeez, what'd Burton ever do to you to make you hate him so bad?



I think - as a student of history - that history itself will hold media in contempt over this mess. More so than the RINOs - who started the ball rolling, because they wanted to win their primaries. More so than the Clintons - who tried to pick up the ball for a scoop and score, because they wanted to win the election. And more so than the FBI/DOJ - who clumsily tried to kick the ball under the rug. To my understanding of what I'm reading, this is almost irrefutable evidence of the "deep state" attempting a soft coup of government. And about this stunning event; the most free, the most mobile and technologically empowered, the most capable media on planet earth . . . says nothing. Nope, nothing here. Just another narrowly failed coup attempt of a constitutional republic. No biggie.

I am gob-smacked that there exists proof - available for public consumption even - of the actions before during and after, and still the MSM is giving it a <shrug> "meh."

I appreciate the way some of you guys here keep us updated on harder to find articles as this drags on. At first I wanted a resolution. Justice, or something resembling it. But then I realized it doesn't hurt us to let it drag out. So here's hoping the media and their commie cronies keep blocking. Keep obstructing, and keep shrugging it off. I'm looking forward to a long boring summer of them slow-rolling this story until it crawls, and then grows its leg muscles, and then walks right into the mid-terms.

So from what I've been seeing/reading, I really think that there's a lot going on that isn't being leaked or given to the press.

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
So from what I've been seeing/reading, I really think that there's a lot going on that isn't being leaked or given to the press.

There always is.

All these people aren’t just sitting around doing nothing, you know. They are on the phone, texting, sending e-mails, drafting memos, going to meetings, dreaming up new policies, regulations, court challenges, etc.

It is so time consuming, back breaking actually, that we probable need twice the resources to handle it all. The poor media can’t hope to report on even a tiny fraction of it.

The head of a top secret surveillance court, in an unusual letter to GOP lawmakers, seemed to put pressure on the Justice Department to consider releasing documents related to the 2016 surveillance warrant granted against a Trump campaign aide.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was responding to requests from the House Intelligence and House Judiciary committees for transcripts of hearings and other documents related to the applications to spy on Trump aide Carter Page.

Republicans claim the Obama FBI relied heavily on the unverified anti-Trump dossier in their application and failed to adequately disclose the document's Democratic funding.

Schiff says he will sit down with the FBI to go over the rebuttal.

But in two letters from the court Thursday, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer made clear to Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and his House Judiciary Committee counterpart -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. -- that the information would be better obtained from the Justice Department.

“While this analysis is underway, you may note that the Department of Justice possesses (or can easily obtain) the same responsive information the Court might possess, and because of separation of powers considerations, is better positioned than the Court to respond quickly,” Collyer wrote to Nunes.

Collyer added that the court does not object to the Executive Branch giving such information to Congress. She noted in her other letter that Goodlatte already has made such a request to the DOJ and FBI.

What records exist and whether they will be turned over remains to be seen.

After Nunes specifically sought transcripts, Collyer noted that the court does not typically make a "systematic record" of the questions and responses at those sessions. But her letters indicated the FBI and DOJ might have other "responsive materials."

She said the requests raise “novel and significant questions.”

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News. A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee declined to comment on the letters.

The Carter Page warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election, and a memo released by Intelligence Committee Republicans this month indicates that allegations included in the Trump dossier were used as the basis for the warrant.

That dossier, penned by former British spy Christopher Steele while working for Fusion GPS, has come under scrutiny not only for its salacious allegations, but its funding by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Democrats have described the Nunes memo as misleading.

The transcripts from the application hearings could reveal to what extent the FBI and the DOJ relied on the dossier in its application and to what extent it disclosed Democratic ties.
"The Committee found that the FBI and DOJ failed to disclose the specific political actors paying for uncorroborated information that formed a substantial part of the FISA application, misled the FISC regarding dissemination of this information, and failed to correct these errors in the subsequent renewals," Nunes wrote in his letter to the court earlier this month.

The court granted the original surveillance warrant on Oct. 21, 2016, and then three subsequent renewals.

Democrats on the intelligence committee are seeking to release their own memo -- which so far has been blocked by the White House, amid claims there are details that would harm national security.

Link

The letters are found here and here.