Video: Bombshell Interview: Rep. Darrel Issa Says Deep State Lied to Get FISA Warrants to Spy on Trump

Issa Also Discusses FBI and DOJ Administrative Stonewalling of Congress…


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.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Grassley Demands DOJ and FBI Turn Over All Info on Flynn

Flynn didn't lie; Second FBI agent in Flynn interview revealed


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.”

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Senate Judiciary Demands DOJ & FBI Turn Over Flynn 302 Forms Due To Comey's Contradictory Statements


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.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, and Joseph diGenova dissect the Mueller Russia investigation.


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.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Devin Nunes Wants To Hold Jeff Sessions In Contempt of Congress


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.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Federal Judge Accuses Mueller's Team of 'Lying,' Trying To Target Trump: 'C'mon Man!'


 

 

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.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

MONUMENTAL: The Naked Truth About Robert Mueller


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.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Questions for Special Counsel Mueller

Turning the tables on President Trump’s interrogator-in-chief.


By Lloyd Billingsley
FrontPageMag.com

Special Counsel and former FBI boss Robert Mueller is on record that President Trump is not a target of his investigation, yet the questions he wants to ask the president have now been leaked to the media. Since the questions are fully predictable and totally without significance, President Trump should not waste his time. On the other hand, the president, and all Americans, might pony up a few questions for Herr Mueller his own self. 

Investigations normally pursue a crime. What crime, exactly, are you investigating? Given the time and money you have put in, the people have a right to know.

Special Counsel Mueller, if you operate in search of collusion, what statute, exactly, would you use to prosecute collusion? Please supply the numbers in the U.S. code.

Special Counsel Mueller, you have been called a man of great integrity. Why did you front-load your investigative team with highly partisan supporters of Hillary Clinton? Were independent, non-partisan lawyers not available? 

If your target is Russian influence in general, Special Counsel Mueller, why are you not investigating the Clinton Foundation and its dealings with Russia? Have you consulted the book Clinton Cash? 

Special Counsel Mueller, what is your understanding of Fanny Ohr? She is the Russia expert, wife of demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS on the Steele dossier. In your expert opinion, why might Fanny Ohr have acquired a short-wave radio license about that time? Was it to communicate with Russian contacts and avoid detection? Did the FBI monitor any of Ohr’s communications?

As you know, Peter Strzok was formerly FBI counterintelligence boss, a very important position. Why was agent Strzok unable to detect the work of the Democrats’ IT man Imran Awan, who had no security clearance but gained repeated unauthorized access to computers of the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees? Was that because agent Strzok was busy exonerating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her destruction of evidence, including more than 30,000 emails.

Agent Strzok changed “gross negligence,” which was a crime, to “extremely careless,” which was not, and FBI boss James Comey repeated that change. What is your take on that? Did you ever exonerate a suspect before you even talked to them? 

In your view, former FBI Director Mueller, what was all that business with Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton out on the tarmac? Was it just to exchange pleasantries? Given the time and money you have put in, the public has a right to know. 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: 'An Unaccountable Bureaucrat': DiGenova Slams Rosenstein for Slow-Walking Russia Docs

'He created the original sin: an investigation of no crime.'


Former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has "disqualified" himself from continued service with the Department of Justice.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus have drafted articles of impeachment against Rosenstein, calling it a “last resort” if the Justice Department continues “slow-walking” its response to document requests related to the Russia investigation.

Speaking at an event in Washington on Tuesday, Rosenstein accused caucus members of not being able to “resist leaking their own draft,” adding that DOJ “will not be extorted.”

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," diGenova said Attorney General Jeff Sessions should berate Rosenstein for comparing Congress' constitutional right of oversight to extortion.

"That statement by a constitutional officer like Rod Rosenstein is disgraceful, it's an embarrassment to the department," diGenova said. "But it is of a pattern of what Mr. Rosenstein has done there since he arrived."

He pointed out that Rosenstein was the one who appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the one who's overseeing the Russia investigation, which Trump has long labeled a "witch hunt."

"He is resisting all of this because he created the original sin: an investigation of no crime," diGenova said, slamming Rosenstein as an "unaccountable bureaucrat."

 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)