Under Mueller, the FBI worked with a Russian oligarch to try and secure the release of Bob Levinson; The Hill's John Solomon explains on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

 

Issa and Bartiromo discussed the latest shocking developments in the Obama Deep State targeting and spying on the Trump campaign.

Maria Bartiromo: Do you believe you are getting honest answers from the FBI and DOJ?

Rep. Darrell Issa: No, I think they’re lying though their teeth… It is very clear that we are being asked to trust the Department of Justice who we know did in fact use a law that allows them to spy but lied to get the warrants, lied to a federal judge under the FISA act. So this is one of the challenges. Make no bones about it. A FISA warrant is in fact a license to spy. Now the question is did you lie, cheat or steal in order to do that and very clearly with the information presented behind closed doors to the federal judge the fact is they did mislead the judge to get a warrant multiple ability to spy and now we’re asked to believe that you can trust the very people, not the management for a moment, but the very people who know this and are covering it up.

 

By Sara Carter
SaraCarter.com

The chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee is demanding that the Department of Justice and FBI adhere to requests made over a year ago and turn over all documentation associated with the bureau’s investigation into former National Security Advisor Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Flynn, who plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI, despite evidence and admissions from senior FBI officials that he did not lie. Moreover, the letter reveals, for the first time, the name of the second FBI agent who interviewed Flynn at the White House regarding his conversation with the former Russian Ambassador.

“The Department has withheld the Flynn-related documents since our initial bipartisan request last year, citing an ongoing criminal investigation…”

Senator Chuck Grassley

Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter to Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray Friday requesting a slew of documentation pertaining to Flynn’s case. He noted that on Feb. 15, 2017, a bipartisan group of members from his committee had requested a copy of the intercepted classified phone transcript between Flynn and former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and due to an ongoing investigation the DOJ and FBI denied the committee’s request. Flynn was fired by President Trump in February 2017 for apparently not being forthright with Vice President Mike Pence about his conversation with Kislyak.

Grassley stated in Friday’s letter that at the time the committee requested the documentation on Flynn, “the Justice Department declined to provide any of that information, and instead, then-FBI Director (James) Comey provided a wide-ranging briefing to us on March 15, 2017, that touched on the Flynn issues.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

“The Department has withheld the Flynn-related documents since our initial bipartisan request last year, citing an ongoing criminal investigation,” Grassley stated. “With Flynn’s plea, the investigation appears concluded.”

By Ryan Saavedra
TheDailyWire.com

On Friday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter to Department of Justice Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they produce documents related to the FBI's assessments of their interview of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn due to recent contradictory statements made by fired FBI Director James Comey.

"On February 15, 2017, this Committee requested on a bipartisan basis a copy of the transcript of the widely reported call between Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador and the FBI report summarizing the intercepted calls," Grassley wrote. "The Justice Department declined to provide any of that information, and instead then-FBI Director Comey provided a wide-ranging briefing to us on March 15, 2017 that touched on the Flynn issues. "

"According to that agent’s contemporaneous notes, Director Comey specifically told us during that briefing that the FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn, 'saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying,'" Grassley's letter continues. "Our own Committee staff’s notes indicate that Mr. Comey said the 'agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.'

"Contrary to his public statements during his current book tour denying any memory of those comments, then-Director Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied..." Grassley wrote, before listing off demands to Rosenstein and Wray.

Given Comey's contradictory statements, Grassley instructed the Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director to provide to the committee by no later than May 25, 2018, everything requested in the "February 15, 2017 letter, including the transcripts of the reportedly intercepted calls and any FBI reports summarizing them; and the FBI agents’ 302s memorializing their interview of Flynn and 1A supporting docs, including the agents’ notes."

PJ Media notes:

The 302 form contains information from the notes an FBI agent takes during an interview of a subject. It is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct."

The reason that the 302 forms are of especially high interest regarding Flynn is that reports have surfaced indicating that recently fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe might have instructed FBI agents to change the information they recorded on the forms.

"I have been told tonight by a number of sources ... that McCabe may have asked FBI agents to actually change their 302s," investigative journalist Sara Carter told Fox News host Sean Hannity.

Judicial Watch today released new emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) showing that former FBI Director James Comey was advised by FBI officials in May 2017 to consult with Special Counsel Robert Mueller prior to testifying before any congressional committees regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and his firing as FBI director.

According to numerous news reports, Comey met directly with Mueller previous to his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sources said that Comey’s opening statement and subsequent testimony were coordinated with Mueller.

At the hearing, Comey revealed that he had intentionally leaked material from a memo allegedly documenting a meeting with President Trump in order to help assure the appointment of a special counsel.

I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

The DOJ and FBI have stated that Comey’s leaks were unauthorized and compared the disclosures to Wikileaks.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch are the first to reveal that high-ranking FBI officials helped Comey coordinate his testimony with Mueller.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ on January 31, 2018 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00220)). The lawsuit was filed after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 14, 2017 FOIA request seeking:

• All records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 8, 2017.
• All records of communications between the FBI and Comey relating to an upcoming book to be authored by Comey and published.
• All records, including but not limited to forms completed by Comey, relating to the requirement for prepublication review by the FBI of any book to be authored by Comey with the intent to be published or otherwise publicly available.

On May 17, 2017, Comey received notices to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

An email chain dated May 18 and 19, 2017, with the subject line “Future testimony” shows then-FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Director Gregory Brower, Comey and others discussing Comey’s upcoming testimony:

In this chain, on May 18 at 6:30 pm, Comey wrote to Rybicki to confirm that he had accepted the invitation to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) but declined the invitations from the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

Comey also writes: “Last, would you please tell OGC [Office of the General Counsel] that I would like to be able to review any documents authored by me or on which I am copied that will be produced to SSCI in connection with my testimony and would like the opportunity for that review before I testify?”

An email from a redacted sender, apparently Comey, to Rybicki dated May 19 at 11:49 am reads:

Jim

I just got off a call with Senators Burr and Warner. They would like to have a hearing next Wednesday at which I testify, first in open session and then in closed, if necessary. I asked them not to announce it until I check with FBI/DOJ to see if you want to discuss anything before they do that. I told them I had asked for guidance on any institutional prerogatives and for the opportunity to review any documents FBI has produced that relate to me. I told them I would communicate with them by the end of the day to either ask them to hold announcing the Wednesday hearing or go ahead.

Many thanks.

Jim

On May 19 at 2:10 pm, Rybicki writes back:

Director: We just met to discuss the requests outlined in the two emails below. Before responding the General Counsel has asked me to confirm that you have discussed with the attorneys representing you, and that you are comfortable discussing these issues with us rather than communicating through your counsel.

On May 19 at 3:02 pm, a redacted sender, likely Comey, responds to Rybicki: “Yes and yes.”

Also in this chain, on May 19 at 4:11 pm, Rybicki writes to McCabe, FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich, former FBI General Counsel James A. Baker, Brower, Elizabeth Beers and other redacted names:

Please see a DRAFT response to Director Comey (below). I will hold pending further direction….

Director:

In response to your emails below we have consulted with executive management here, including the General Counsel, and recommend the following:

1. That your counsel convey any acceptance or declinations to invitations to testify directly to the Committees.
2. That your counsel consult with Special Counsel Mueller to determine the timing of any such testimony and,
3. The Office of General Counsel stands ready to discuss with you in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel, institutional privileges or prerogatives that may be presented by any such testimony.

“These documents show that James Comey, who was fired by the president, nevertheless had easy, friendly access to the FBI as he prepped his infamous anti-Trump testimony to the Senate,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This collusion led to Comey’s attacking President Trump and misusing FBI records as part of a vendetta against the president.”

LevinTV host Mark Levin interviewed former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino and former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova on his weekly Fox News program, “Life, Liberty & Levin.”

“We’re here on very serious business,” Levin began. He asked his guests about two Department of Justice memoranda, one from the Nixon administration and one from the Clinton administration, that conclude that a president of the United States cannot be indicted by a special counsel.

“I don’t think there’s any question that the Mueller investigation as it sits now is illegitimate,” diGenova said. He explained that the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not name a crime for Mueller to investigate, raising serious problems. “It named nothing. This was a way for the department under Rosenstein to avoid responsibility for conducting an inquiry,” he said.

With no crime being investigated, diGenova said that having President Trump sit down with Mueller to answer his questions would be a waste of time for both Trump and the country. “I think the president should fight to the very end any subpoena issued by the special counsel,” he concluded.

Levin asked Bongino if he thought the Mueller probe is putting together a case for impeachment against Trump. Bongino thinks it is, but he went further, running through the prosecutors Mueller has hired and their anti-Trump, pro-Clinton biases.

“I think the entire Mueller operation, Mark, is a smokescreen to keep the attention on Donald J. Trump and to keep the attention away from the crimes committed with the Clinton operation and … the Obamagate spying scandal as well,” Bongino said.

 

By Daniel Chaitin
TheWashingtonExaminer.com

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes announced Sunday he's going to push Congress this week to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt of Congress.

This extreme step is a culmination of the frustration the California Republican explained he's felt in dealing with a Justice Department that had stymied his requests for information, during the panel's government surveillance investigation. In particular the committee has been looking into allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance abuses by the Justice Department and FBI that led to spying on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Two weeks ago, Nunes sent a classified letter to Sessions, which he said was not acknowledged. That was followed by a subpoena last week.

"Then on Thursday we discovered that they are not going to comply with our subpoena," Nunes said on "Fox and Friends Sunday."

A Justice Department official shared the letter sent to Nunes on Thursday with the Washington Examiner, which explained that the decision was made after consulting the White House.

"After careful evaluation and following consultations with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the White House, the Department has determined that, consistent with applicable law and longstanding Executive Branch policy, it is not in a position to provide information responsive to your request regarding a specific individual," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in the letter.

"Disclosure of responsive information to such requests can risk severe consequences, including potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interfere with intelligence activities," Boyd added.

The letter also stated that the DOJ was willing to discuss other ways to accommodate the House Intelligence Committee's oversight inquiry.

 

 

By Jake Gibson
Fox News

A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.

The hearing, where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe – in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Manafort’s attorneys argue the special counsel does not have the power to indict him on the charges they have brought – and seemed to find a sympathetic ear with Ellis.

The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.

Mark Levin shares advice on 'Hannity' to Trump's legal team as Mueller threatens to subpoena the president.

 

By Rep. Louis Gohmert

Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people. His many actions are a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone.

I do not make these statements lightly. Each time I prepared to question Mueller during Congressional hearings, the more concerned I became about his ethics and behavior. As I went back to begin compiling all of that information in order to recount personal interactions with Mueller, the more clearly the big picture began to come into focus.

At one point I had to make the decision to stop adding to this compilation or it would turn into a far too lengthy project. My goal was to share some firsthand experiences with Mueller -- as other Republican Members of Congress had requested -- adding, “You seem to know so much about him.”

This article is prepared from my viewpoint to help better inform the reader about the Special Prosecutor leading the effort to railroad President Donald J. Trump through whatever manufactured charge he can allege.

Judging by Mueller's history, it doesn't matter who he has to threaten, harass, prosecute or bankrupt to get to allege something or, for that matter, anything. It certainly appears Mueller will do whatever it takes to bring down his target -- ethically or unethically -- based on my findings.

What does former Attorney General Eric Holder say? Sounds like much the same thing I just said. Holder has stated, "I've known Bob Mueller for 20, 30 years; my guess is he’s just trying to make the case as good as he possibly can."

Holder does know him. He has seen Mueller at work when Holder was obstructing justice and was therefore held in Contempt of Congress. He knows Mueller’s FBI framed innocent people and had no remorse in doing so.

Let’s look at what we know. What I have accumulated here is absolutely shocking upon the realization that Mueller's disreputable, twisted history speaks to the character of the man placed in a position to attempt to legalize a coup against a lawfully-elected President. Any Republican who says anything resembling, “Bob Mueller will do a good job as Special Counsel,” “Bob Mueller has a great reputation for being fair,” or anything similar; either (a) wants President Trump indicted for something and removed from office regardless of his innocence; (b) is intentionally ignorant of the myriad of outrageous problems permeating Mueller’s professional history; or (c) is cultivating future Democrat votes when he or she comes before the Senate someday for a confirmation hearing.

There is simply too much clear and convincing evicdence to the contrary. Where other writers have set out information succinctly, I have quoted them, with proper attribution. My goal is to help you understand what I have found.

Robert Mueller - Background

In his early years as FBI Director, most Republican members of Congress gave Mueller a pass in oversight hearings, allowing him to avoid tough questions. After all, we were continually told, “Bush appointed him.” I gave him easy questions the first time I questioned him in 2005 out of deference to his Vietnam service. Yet, the longer I was in Congress, the more conspicuous the problems became. As I have said before of another Vietnam veteran, just because someone deserves our respect for service or our sympathy for things that happened to them in the military, that does not give them the right to harm our country later. As glaring problems came to light, I toughened up my questions in the oversight hearings. But first, let's cover a little of Mueller's history.