FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Fired Hours Before He Can Claim Retirement

CS natureboy · Apr 19, 2018

anon_de_plume said: ↑

But your favorite president is a prolific liar, I figured you would like them.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking for me now?

How do you know who my favorite president is?

Do you ever get tired of living in a world of make believe?

anon_de_plume · Apr 19, 2018

CS natureboy said: ↑

Are you speaking for me now?
Click to expand...

Can't think of anything else, so you accuse me off putting words in your mouth... Get over yourself...

CS natureboy said: ↑

How do you know who my favorite president is?
Click to expand...

Well, I know it couldn't possibly be Reagan. He was posthumously removed from the republican party.

CS natureboy said: ↑

Do you ever get tired of living in a world of make believe?
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for Trump.

CS natureboy · Apr 19, 2018

Andy's in a jam....

DOJ watchdog sends criminal referral for McCabe to federal prosecutor

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell on the DOJ inspector general's report that said former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe authorized a leak to the media.

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has sent a criminal referral for fired FBI official Andrew McCabe to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

The move follows a recent DOJ inspector general report that found McCabe leaked a self-serving story to the press and later lied about it to then-Director James Comey and federal investigators, prompting Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire him on March 16.

A source confirmed to Fox News that the referral was sent.

The Washington Post reported earlier that the IG referred the finding that McCabe misled investigators "some time ago," asking the top federal prosecutor for D.C. to examine whether he should be charged.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lacked "candor" in conversations with federal investigators. (AP)

Representatives with the Justice Department, inspector general’s office and U.S. attorney’s office all declined to comment.

Republican Rep. Mark Meadows backed the move in a tweet Thursday afternoon.

"The criminal referral from the IG is the right decision. It's about time we have some accountability for this type of conduct at the Justice Department," he said.

On Wednesday, Comey also publicly acknowledged he was the one who prompted the probe and seemed to back the investigation’s findings.

The fired FBI director addressed his former colleague's controversies during an appearance on ABC’s “The View,” after being pressed on how the public was supposed to have “confidence” in the bureau after revelations that ex-deputy director McCabe lied about the leak.

“It’s not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth looks like,” Comey said. “I ordered that investigation.”

Former FBI Director James Comey ordered the inspector general investigation that led to Andrew McCabe's ouster. (AP)

Comey seemed to defend McCabe's character even while backing the DOJ inspector general probe's findings.

“Good people lie. I think I’m a good person, where I have lied,” Comey said. “I still believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied.”

While Comey may not have intentionally launched the investigation gunning for McCabe, it was spurred by a desire to find who leaked to The Wall Street Journal in October 2016 about an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation. The story said a senior Justice Department official expressed displeasure to McCabe that FBI agents were still looking into the Clinton Foundation, and McCabe had defended agents' authority to pursue the issue.

That leak confirmed the existence of the probe into the Clinton Foundation, which Comey, who led the bureau at the time, refused to do.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz sent a criminal referral for Andrew McCabe to the U.S. Attorneys Office in Washington D.C. (AP)

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report said McCabe authorized the leak and then misled investigators about it, leaking in a way that did not fall under the “public interest” exception.

Horowitz found that McCabe lacked “candor” when questioned by FBI agents on multiple occasions, and that he told agents he did not authorize the disclosure and did not know who was responsible.

But McCabe’s legal counsel, Michael Bromwich, has blasted the inspector general report and has criticized Comey. The report said Comey and McCabe gave conflicting accounts about a conversation they had on the leak.

“The OIG should credit Mr. McCabe’s account over Director Comey’s,” Bromwich wrote to Horowitz in a letter, complaining that the report “paints Director Comey as a white knight carefully guarding FBI information, while overlooking that Mr. McCabe’s account is more credible…”

He issued a similar statement Wednesday in response to Comey's interview comments:

"In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has relied on the accuracy and the soundness of the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall Street Journal on the stories in question prior to publication. Neither Mr. Comey nor the OIG is infallible, and in this case neither of them has it right."

On Wednesday, nearly a dozen Republican members of Congress sent their own criminal referral to the Justice Department and FBI seeking an investigation of McCabe, along with Comey, ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and others.

The IG referral, however, could represent a more serious problem for McCabe.

ace's n 8's · Apr 20, 2018

CS natureboy said: ↑

Andy's in a jam....

DOJ watchdog sends criminal referral for McCabe to federal prosecutor

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

Judicial Watch Director of Investigations Chris Farrell on the DOJ inspector general's report that said former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe authorized a leak to the media.

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has sent a criminal referral for fired FBI official Andrew McCabe to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

The move follows a recent DOJ inspector general report that found McCabe leaked a self-serving story to the press and later lied about it to then-Director James Comey and federal investigators, prompting Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire him on March 16.

A source confirmed to Fox News that the referral was sent.

The Washington Post reported earlier that the IG referred the finding that McCabe misled investigators "some time ago," asking the top federal prosecutor for D.C. to examine whether he should be charged.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lacked "candor" in conversations with federal investigators. (AP)

Representatives with the Justice Department, inspector general’s office and U.S. attorney’s office all declined to comment.

Republican Rep. Mark Meadows backed the move in a tweet Thursday afternoon.

"The criminal referral from the IG is the right decision. It's about time we have some accountability for this type of conduct at the Justice Department," he said.

On Wednesday, Comey also publicly acknowledged he was the one who prompted the probe and seemed to back the investigation’s findings.

The fired FBI director addressed his former colleague's controversies during an appearance on ABC’s “The View,” after being pressed on how the public was supposed to have “confidence” in the bureau after revelations that ex-deputy director McCabe lied about the leak.

“It’s not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth looks like,” Comey said. “I ordered that investigation.”

Former FBI Director James Comey ordered the inspector general investigation that led to Andrew McCabe's ouster. (AP)

Comey seemed to defend McCabe's character even while backing the DOJ inspector general probe's findings.

“Good people lie. I think I’m a good person, where I have lied,” Comey said. “I still believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied.”

While Comey may not have intentionally launched the investigation gunning for McCabe, it was spurred by a desire to find who leaked to The Wall Street Journal in October 2016 about an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation. The story said a senior Justice Department official expressed displeasure to McCabe that FBI agents were still looking into the Clinton Foundation, and McCabe had defended agents' authority to pursue the issue.

That leak confirmed the existence of the probe into the Clinton Foundation, which Comey, who led the bureau at the time, refused to do.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz sent a criminal referral for Andrew McCabe to the U.S. Attorneys Office in Washington D.C. (AP)

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report said McCabe authorized the leak and then misled investigators about it, leaking in a way that did not fall under the “public interest” exception.

Horowitz found that McCabe lacked “candor” when questioned by FBI agents on multiple occasions, and that he told agents he did not authorize the disclosure and did not know who was responsible.

But McCabe’s legal counsel, Michael Bromwich, has blasted the inspector general report and has criticized Comey. The report said Comey and McCabe gave conflicting accounts about a conversation they had on the leak.

“The OIG should credit Mr. McCabe’s account over Director Comey’s,” Bromwich wrote to Horowitz in a letter, complaining that the report “paints Director Comey as a white knight carefully guarding FBI information, while overlooking that Mr. McCabe’s account is more credible…”

He issued a similar statement Wednesday in response to Comey's interview comments:

"In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has relied on the accuracy and the soundness of the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall Street Journal on the stories in question prior to publication. Neither Mr. Comey nor the OIG is infallible, and in this case neither of them has it right."

On Wednesday, nearly a dozen Republican members of Congress sent their own criminal referral to the Justice Department and FBI seeking an investigation of McCabe, along with Comey, ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and others.

The IG referral, however, could represent a more serious problem for McCabe.
Click to expand...

Sounds like McCabe drew the short straw, I doubt there will be anymore short straws to pick.

JimmyCrackPorn · Apr 20, 2018

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us..._could_face_criminal_charges_for_alleged_lies

Asked how he felt about allegations that McCabe lied to the FBI, Comey said he was “conflicted.”

“I like him very much as a person, but sometimes even good people do things they shouldn’t do,” Comey said, adding that the Justice Department’s “accountability mechanisms are working.”

“It’s a department that is committed to the truth,” Comey said.
---------------
At least it was until you and Choom Boy Blowbama got a hold of it.

stumbler · May 18, 2018

I just love the New York Times.

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation

WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.

The name, a reference to the Rolling Stones lyric “I was born in a crossfire hurricane,” was an apt prediction of a political storm that continues to tear shingles off the bureau. Days after they closed their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, agents began scrutinizing the campaign of her Republican rival. The two cases have become inextricably linked in one of the most consequential periods in the history of the F.B.I.

This month, the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release the findings of its lengthy review of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the Clinton case. The results are certain to renew debate over decisions by the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, to publicly chastise Mrs. Clinton in a news conference, and then announce the reopening of the investigation days before Election Day. Mrs. Clinton has said those actions buried her presidential hopes.

Those decisions stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.

Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.

Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case.

The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman. One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts. Another was suspected of being a Russian agent himself.

In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency. But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. declined to tip its hand. And when The New York Times tried to assess the state of the investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.

Mr. Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations about who would benefit from each decision.

But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.

The F.B.I. now faces those very criticisms and more. Mr. Trump says he is the victim of a politicized F.B.I. He says senior agents tried to rig the election by declining to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, then drummed up the Russia investigation to undermine his presidency. He has declared that a deeply rooted cabal — including his own appointees — is working against him.

That argument is the heart of Mr. Trump’s grievances with the federal investigation. In the face of bipartisan support for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump and his allies have made a priority of questioning how the investigation was conducted in late 2016 and trying to discredit it.

“It’s a witch hunt,” Mr. Trump said last month on Fox News. “And they know that, and I’ve been able to message it.”

Congressional Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, have begun to dig into F.B.I. files, looking for evidence that could undermine the investigation. Much remains unknown and classified. But those who saw the investigation up close, and many of those who have reviewed case files in the past year, say that far from gunning for Mr. Trump, the F.B.I. could actually have done more in the final months of 2016 to scrutinize his campaign’s Russia ties.

“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” said Mary McCord, a 20-year Justice Department veteran and the top national security prosecutor during much of the investigation’s first nine months.

Crossfire Hurricane spawned a case that has brought charges against former Trump campaign officials and more than a dozen Russians. But in the final months of 2016, agents faced great uncertainty — about the facts, and how to respond.

Anxiety at the Bureau
Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. “I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.

The mood in early meetings was anxious, former officials recalled. Agents had just closed the Clinton investigation, and they braced for months of Republican-led hearings over why she was not charged. Crossfire Hurricane was built around the same core of agents and analysts who had investigated Mrs. Clinton. None was eager to re-enter presidential politics, former officials said, especially when agents did not know what would come of the Australian information.

The question they confronted still persists: Was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to Russian efforts to undermine the election?

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. Each was scrutinized because of his obvious or suspected Russian ties.

Mr. Flynn, a top adviser, was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Manafort, the campaign chairman, had lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.

Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, was well known to the F.B.I. He had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.

Lastly, there was Mr. Papadopoulos, the young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt on Mrs. Clinton. But even if the F.B.I. had wanted to read his emails or intercept his calls, that evidence was not enough to allow it. Many months passed, former officials said, before the F.B.I. uncovered emails linking Mr. Papadopoulos to a Russian intelligence operation.

Mr. Trump was not under investigation, but his actions perplexed the agents. Days after the stolen Democratic emails became public, he called on Russia to uncover more. Then news broke that Mr. Trump’s campaign had pushed to change the Republican platform’s stance on Ukraine in ways favorable to Russia.

The F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently, three officials said.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.

“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what they did.”

Abounding Criticism
Looking back, some inside the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say that Mr. Comey should have seen the political storm coming and better sheltered the bureau. They question why he consolidated the Clinton and Trump investigations at headquarters, rather than in a field office. And they say he should not have relied on the same team for both cases. That put a bull’s-eye on the heart of the F.B.I. Any misstep in either investigation made both cases, and the entire bureau, vulnerable to criticism.

And there were missteps. Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty about his conversations with reporters about Mrs. Clinton. That gave ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted. And Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page, an F.B.I. lawyer, exchanged texts criticizing Mr. Trump, allowing the president to point to evidence of bias when they became public.

The messages were unsparing. They questioned Mr. Trump’s intelligence, believed he promoted intolerance and feared he would damage the bureau.

The inspector general’s upcoming report is expected to criticize those messages for giving the appearance of bias. It is not clear, however, whether inspectors found evidence supporting Mr. Trump’s assertion that agents tried to protect Mrs. Clinton, a claim the F.B.I. has adamantly denied.

Mr. Rubio, who has reviewed many of the texts and case files, said he saw no signs that the F.B.I. wanted to undermine Mr. Trump. “There might have been individual agents that had views that, in hindsight, have been problematic for those agents,” Mr. Rubio said. “But whether that was a systemic effort, I’ve seen no evidence of it.”

Mr. Trump’s daily Twitter posts, though, offer sound-bite-sized accusations — witch hunt, hoax, deep state, rigged system — that fan the flames of conspiracy. Capitol Hill allies reliably echo those comments.

“It’s like the deep state all got together to try to orchestrate a palace coup,” Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, said in January on Fox Business Network.

Cautious Intelligence Gathering
Counterintelligence investigations can take years, but if the Russian government had influence over the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. wanted to know quickly. One option was the most direct: interview the campaign officials about their Russian contacts.

That was discussed but not acted on, two former officials said, because interviewing witnesses or subpoenaing documents might thrust the investigation into public view, exactly what F.B.I. officials were trying to avoid during the heat of the presidential race.

“You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election,” Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general, said in an interview. She would not discuss details, but added, “Folks were very careful to make sure that actions that were being taken in connection with that investigation did not become public.”

Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make.

Top officials became convinced that there was almost no chance they would answer the question of collusion before Election Day. And that made agents even more cautious.

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.

Looking back, some at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. now believe that agents could have been more aggressive. They ultimately interviewed Mr. Papadopoulos in January 2017 and managed to keep it a secret, suggesting they could have done so much earlier.

“There is always a high degree of caution before taking overt steps in a counterintelligence investigation,” said Ms. McCord, who would not discuss details of the case. “And that could have worked to the president’s benefit here.”

Such tactical discussions are reflected in one of Mr. Strzok’s most controversial texts, sent on Aug. 15, 2016, after a meeting in Mr. McCabe’s office.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected,” Mr. Strzok wrote, “but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Mr. Trump says that message revealed a secret F.B.I. plan to respond to his election. “‘We’ll go to Phase 2 and we’ll get this guy out of office,’” he told The Wall Street Journal. “This is the F.B.I. we’re talking about — that is treason.”

But officials have told the inspector general something quite different. They said Ms. Page and others advocated a slower, circumspect pace, especially because polls predicted Mr. Trump’s defeat. They said that anything the F.B.I. did publicly would only give fodder to Mr. Trump’s claims on the campaign trail that the election was rigged.

Mr. Strzok countered that even if Mr. Trump’s chances of victory were low — like dying before 40 — the stakes were too high to justify inaction.

Mr. Strzok had similarly argued for a more aggressive path during the Clinton investigation, according to four current and former officials. He opposed the Justice Department’s decision to offer Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers immunity and negotiate access to her hard drives, the officials said. Mr. Strzok favored using search warrants or subpoenas instead.
Policy and Tradition
The F.B.I. bureaucracy did agents no favors. In July, a retired British spy named Christopher Steele approached a friend in the F.B.I. overseas and provided reports linking Trump campaign officials to Russia. But the documents meandered around the F.B.I. organizational chart, former officials said. Only in mid-September, congressional investigators say, did the records reach the Crossfire Hurricane team.

Mr. Steele was gathering information about Mr. Trump as a private investigator for Fusion GPS, a firm paid by Democrats. But he was also considered highly credible, having helped agents unravel complicated cases.

In October, agents flew to Europe to interview him. But Mr. Steele had become frustrated by the F.B.I.’s slow response. He began sharing his findings in September and October with journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, according to congressional testimony.

So as agents tried to corroborate Mr. Steele’s information, reporters began calling the bureau, asking about his findings. If the F.B.I. was working against Mr. Trump, as he asserts, this was an opportunity to push embarrassing information into the news media shortly before the election.

That did not happen. Most news organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.

Congress was also increasingly asking questions. Mr. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, had briefed top lawmakers that summer about Russian election interference and intelligence that Moscow supported the Trump campaign — a finding that would not become public for months. Lawmakers clamored for information from Mr. Comey, who refused to answer public questions.

Many Democrats see rueful irony in this moment. Mr. Comey, after all, broke with policy and twice publicly discussed the Clinton investigation. Yet he refused repeated requests to discuss the Trump investigation
Mr. Comey has said he regrets his decision to chastise Mrs. Clinton as “extremely careless,” even as he announced that she should not be charged. But he stands by his decision to alert Congress, days before the election, that the F.B.I. was reopening the Clinton inquiry.

The result, though, is that Mr. Comey broke with both policy and tradition in Mrs. Clinton’s case, but hewed closely to the rules for Mr. Trump. Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that alone proves Mr. Trump’s claims of unfairness to be “both deeply at odds with the facts, and damaging to our democracy.”

Spying in Question
Crossfire Hurricane began with a focus on four campaign officials. But by mid-fall 2016, Mr. Page’s inquiry had progressed the furthest. Agents had known Mr. Page for years. Russian spies tried to recruit him in 2013, and he was dismissive when agents warned him about it, a half-dozen current and former officials said. That warning even made its way back to Russian intelligence, leaving agents suspecting that Mr. Page had reported their efforts to Moscow.

Relying on F.B.I. information and Mr. Steele’s, prosecutors obtained court approval to eavesdrop on Mr. Page, who was no longer with the Trump campaign.

That warrant has become deeply contentious and is crucial to Republican arguments that intelligence agencies improperly used Democratic research to help justify spying on the Trump campaign. The inspector general is reviewing that claim.

Ms. Yates, the deputy attorney general under President Barack Obama, signed the first warrant application. But subsequent filings were approved by members of Mr. Trump’s own administration: the acting attorney general, Dana J. Boente, and then Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.

“Folks are very, very careful and serious about that process,” Ms. Yates said. “I don’t know of anything that gives me any concerns.”

After months of investigation, Mr. Papadopoulos remained largely a puzzle. And agents were nearly ready to close their investigation of Mr. Flynn, according to three current and former officials. (Mr. Flynn rekindled the F.B.I.’s interest in November 2016 by signing an op-ed article that appeared to be written on behalf of the Turkish government, and then making phone calls to the Russian ambassador that December.)

In late October, in response to questions from The Times, law enforcement officials acknowledged the investigation but urged restraint. They said they had scrutinized some of Mr. Trump’s advisers but had found no proof of any involvement with Russian hacking. The resulting article, on Oct. 31, reflected that caution and said that agents had uncovered no “conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts. But the article’s tone and headline — “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” — gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning.

Democrats say that article pre-emptively exonerated Mr. Trump, dousing chances to raise questions about the campaign’s Russian ties before Election Day.

Just as the F.B.I. has been criticized for its handling of the Trump investigation, so too has The Times.

For Mr. Steele, it dashed his confidence in American law enforcement. “He didn’t know what was happening inside the F.B.I.,” Glenn R. Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, testified this year. “And there was a concern that the F.B.I. was being manipulated for political ends by the Trump people.”

Assurances Amid Doubt
Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior American intelligence officials briefed him at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Russian hacking and deception. They reported that Mr. Putin had tried to sow chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr. Trump win.

Then Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them. Mr. Comey has said he feared making this conversation a “J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,” with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.

In a contemporaneous memo, Mr. Comey wrote that he assured Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. intended to protect him on this point. “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Mr. Comey wrote of Mr. Steele’s documents. “I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the F.B.I. had the material.”

Mr. Trump was not convinced — either by the Russia briefing or by Mr. Comey’s assurances. He made up his mind before Mr. Comey even walked in the door. Hours earlier, Mr. Trump told The Times that stories about Russian election interference were being pushed by his adversaries to distract from his victory.

And he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: “This is a political witch hunt.”

Correction: May 15, 2018
An earlier version of this article misstated that news organizations did not report on the findings of the retired British spy Christopher Steele about links between Trump campaign officials and Russia. While most news organizations whose reporters met with Mr. Steele did not publish such reports before the 2016 election, Mother Jones magazine did.
Click to expand...

shootersa · May 18, 2018

Shooter for once bothered to read stumbles spew.

Is shooter the only one disturbed by the very obvious fact that both the department of justice AND the FBI are so politicized?

And that they created the justification to interfere in the election?

stumbler · May 20, 2018

I am really glad to see some Trump supporters reading the New York Times. But they need to keep reading.

F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims

WASHINGTON — President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”

In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.

The role of the informant is at the heart of the newest battle between top law enforcement officials and Mr. Trump’s congressional allies over the F.B.I.’s most politically charged investigations in decades. The lawmakers, who say they are concerned that federal investigators are abusing their authority, have demanded documents from the Justice Department about the informant.

Law enforcement officials have refused, saying that handing over the documents would imperil both the source’s anonymity and safety. The New York Times has learned the source’s identity but typically does not name informants to preserve their safety.

Democrats say the Republicans’ real aim is to undermine the special counsel investigation. Senior law enforcement officials have also privately expressed concern that the Republicans are digging into F.B.I. files for information they can weaponize against the Russia inquiry.

Over the past two days, Mr. Trump has used speculative news reports about the informant, mostly from conservative media, to repeatedly assail the Russia investigation.

“Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” he wrote on Twitter on Friday. “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a ‘hot’ Fake News story. If true — all time biggest political scandal!”

No evidence has emerged that the informant acted improperly when the F.B.I. asked for help in gathering information on the former campaign advisers, or that agents veered from the F.B.I.’s investigative guidelines and began a politically motivated inquiry, which would be illegal.

But agents were leery of disrupting the presidential campaign again after the F.B.I. had announced in a high-profile news conference that it had closed the case involving Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

After opening the Russia inquiry about a month later, they took steps, those officials said, to ensure that details of the inquiry were more closely held than even in a typical national security investigation, including the use of the informant to suss out information from the unsuspecting targets. Sending F.B.I. agents to interview them could have created additional risk that the investigation’s existence would seep into view in the final weeks of a heated presidential race.

F.B.I. officials concluded they had the legal authority to open the investigation after receiving information that Mr. Papadopoulos was told that Moscow had compromising information on Mrs. Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” months before WikiLeaks released stolen messages from Democratic officials. As part of the operation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, the F.B.I. also began investigating Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and his future national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.

Details about the informant’s relationship with the F.B.I. remain scant. It is not clear how long the relationship existed and whether the F.B.I. paid the source or assigned the person to other cases.

Informants take great risks when working for intelligence services, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, testified before Congress on Wednesday. Their identities must not be exposed, he said, hinting at congressional efforts to obtain the name of the source. “The day that we can’t protect human sources is the day the American people start becoming less safe.”

One of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani, acknowledged on Friday that neither the president nor his legal team knew with certainty that the F.B.I. had implanted a spy in the Trump campaign, as he and the president had alleged.

“I don’t know for sure, nor does the president, if there really was one,” Mr. Giuliani said on CNN. “For a long time, we’ve been told there was some kind of infiltration.”

The informant is well known in Washington circles, having served in previous Republican administrations and as a source of information for the C.I.A. in past years, according to one person familiar with the source’s work.

F.B.I. agents were seeking more details about what Mr. Papadopoulos knew about the hacked Democratic emails, and one month after their Russia investigation began, Mr. Papadopoulos received a curious message. The academic inquired about his interest in writing a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a subject of Mr. Papadopoulos’s expertise.

The informant offered a $3,000 honorarium for the paper and a paid trip to London, where the two could meet and discuss the research project.

“I understand that this is rather sudden but thought that given your expertise it might be of interest to you,” the informant wrote in a message to Mr. Papadopoulos, sent on Sept. 2, 2016.

Mr. Papadopoulos accepted the offer and arrived in London two weeks later, where he met for several days with the academic and one of his assistants, a young woman.

Over drinks and dinner one evening at a high-end London hotel, the F.B.I. informant raised the subject of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails that had spilled into public view earlier that summer, according to a person familiar with the conversation. The source noted how helpful they had been to the Trump campaign, and asked Mr. Papadopoulos whether he knew anything about Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Papadopoulos replied that he had no insight into the Russian campaign — despite being told months earlier that the Russians had dirt on Mrs. Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails. His response clearly annoyed the informant, who tried to press Mr. Papadopoulos about what he might know about the Russian effort, according to the person.

The assistant also raised the subject of Russia and the Clinton emails during a separate conversation over drinks with Mr. Papadopoulos, and again he denied he knew anything about Russian attempts to disrupt the election.

After the trip to London, Mr. Papadopoulos wrote the 1,500-word research paper and was paid for his work. He did not hear again from the informant.

Mr. Page, a Navy veteran, served briefly as an adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign until September 2016. He said that he first encountered the informant during a conference in mid-July of 2016 and that they stayed in touch. The two later met several times in the Washington area. Mr. Page said their interactions were benign.

The two last exchanged emails in September 2017, about a month before a secret warrant to surveil Mr. Page expired after being repeatedly renewed by a federal judge. Mr. Trump’s congressional allies have also assailed the surveillance, accusing law enforcement officials, with little evidence, of abusing their authority and spying on the Trump campaign.

The informant also had contacts with Mr. Flynn, the retired Army general who was Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser. The two met in February 2014, when Mr. Flynn was running the Defense Intelligence Agency and attended the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, an academic forum for former spies and researchers that meets a few times a year.

According to people familiar with Mr. Flynn’s visit to the intelligence seminar, the source was alarmed by the general’s apparent closeness with a Russian woman who was also in attendance. The concern was strong enough that it prompted another person to pass on a warning to the American authorities that Mr. Flynn could be compromised by Russian intelligence, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Two years later, in late 2016, the seminar itself was embroiled in a scandal about Russian spying. A number of its organizers resigned over what they said was a Kremlin-backed attempt to take control of the group.
Click to expand...

shootersa · May 20, 2018

The FBI "sent an informant"....
In any world but unsupporter world, that is a spy.

ace's n 8's · May 20, 2018

stumbler said: ↑

I am really glad to see some Trump supporters reading the New York Times. But they need to keep reading.

F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims
Click to expand...

This is the only Russia Investigation worth a pound of salt;

FBI informant gathered years of evidence on Russian push for US nuclear fuel deals, including Uranium One, memos show
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ered-years-of-evidence-on-russian-push-for-us

stumbler · May 20, 2018

The only investigation that counts is Mueller's.

And the vast majority of Americans know the FBI has been using informants to investigate Russian spies since the 1930's and think that's a pretty good deal and they are getting their money's worth.

ace's n 8's · May 20, 2018

stumbler said: ↑

The only investigation that counts is Mueller's.

And the vast majority of Americans know the FBI has been using informants to investigate Russian spies since the 1930's and think that's a pretty good deal and they are getting their money's worth.
Click to expand...

Yeah...after second thought, you're right.

The more Mueller investigates, the more we find out how a criminal federal fucking government has operated for years.

shootersa · May 20, 2018

If it doesn't scare people to discover that the FBI and DOJ have been politicized for years, and are covertly trying to impact the presidential election process, we are well and truly fucked.

stumbler · May 22, 2018

OK now let's get this straight again. It is not Putin/Russia interfering in our elections and attacking our democracy worse than since World War II. It's not Russian spies recruiting Americans. Surrendering to Russia is not the problem. The problem is the DOJ and FBI who are supposed to protect us from the Russians that are the problem. And I don't think anyone other than a Russian would believe that.

But on the sites and channels I watch and belong to there is much howling and gnashing of teeth right now because it is widely feared Rosenstein is caving to Trump and Nunes to reveal their sources.

Other's, however, say it could also be that Mueller, the DOJ, and FBI are actually far enough by now to start laying down some of their cards. Because they know what they have and there is no stopping this now.

But one way or another something is fixin' to happen.

stumbler · May 31, 2018

McCabe memo confirms Rosenstein always knew Trump fired Comey over Russia: report

Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe gave special counsel Robert Mueller a memo documenting potentially critical conversations he had in the wake of the former FBI Director James Comey’s firing, according to a new report from the New York Times.

The memo reportedly contains a record of McCabe’s conversation with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after President Donald Trump fired Comey. After the firing, the White House released a letter from Rosenstein detailing what he viewed was Comey’s mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email case, which the deputy attorney general believes was unfair to the former secretary of state. Rosenstein has since said that he did not intend his letter to be used to justify Comey’s firing.

According to the report, McCabe said that Rosenstein told him that the president asked that he mention Russia in the letter. McCabe reportedly thought this suggested that Comey’s termination may be tied to the Russia investigation, which raises questions of whether the president’s decision constitutes obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein did not end up mentioning anything about Russia or the investigation in his letter. One source told the Times that Trump only wanted Rosenstein to mention the fact that the president himself was not a target of the investigation.

The Times notes that this development raises questions about how Rosenstein can legitimately continue to oversee the Russia investigation, given that his conduct may play a role in the probe. Rosenstein has previously said that he has discussed any potential conflicts with Mueller and that he will recuse himself should it become necessary.
Click to expand...

CS natureboy · Jun 1, 2018

Comey interviewed by federal prosecutors investigating possible McCabe charges: report

Report: Fired FBI deputy director McCabe gave Mueller secret memo on firing of Comey. Catherine Herridge has the details.

Former FBI Director James Comey was recently questioned by the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office as part of a probe into whether Andrew McCabe, his former deputy, committed a crime by lying to federal agents, a Thursday report claimed.

The Washington Post report indicated that McCabe, whom Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired earlier this year just days before he would have been eligible for a lifetime pension, could be charged criminally, according to a person familiar with the matter.

McCabe was fired after the Justice Department's watchdog said he lied to investigators reviewing the bureau’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said McCabe had not been forthcoming in regard to the handling of the FBI’s probe.

Horowitz said McCabe misled both investigators and Comey, multiple times, about a media disclosure authorization. Horowitz then passed those findings to the U.S. attorney’s office to decide if a criminal charge was necessary, although a referral doesn’t mean charges will be filed.

A five-year prison sentence could accompany a charge of lying to federal investigators. McCabe has said he didn’t intentionally mislead anyone.

"This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to taint the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally," McCabe said in a statement after he was fired.

"I like [McCabe] very much as a person, but sometimes even good people do things they shouldn’t do," Comey told "The Lead with Jake Tapper" on CNN in April. "I think it is accountability mechanisms working and they should work because it’s not acceptable in the FBI or the Justice Department for people to lack candor. It’s something we take really seriously."

Thursday's report followed a revelation earlier this week that McCabe had written a private memo detailing the circumstances leading to Comey's firing. A detailed report from the IG on the handling of the Clinton investigation, meantime, is expected within days.

deleted user 777 698 · Jun 1, 2018

Certainly, you don't expect McCabe or for that matter Comey to spend even an hour in jail...that ain't never gonna happen. Why do you think they are hell-bent on getting rid of President Trump? Trump won't go along with "business as usual" politics. You can't possibly think they think Trump is bad for the country. They may not be the sharpest tacks in the box but they aren't that stupid.

stumbler · Jun 6, 2018

DOJ watchdog will rake Comey over the coals — for hurting Hillary Clinton: report

A new report set to be released by the Justice Department’s inspector general will apparently rake former FBI Director James Comey over the coals — but it won’t be for the reasons President Donald Trump has been hoping for.

According to ABC News, the IG’s report will fault Comey for his decision to ignore DOJ recommendations when it came to his decision to announce he would reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server eleven days before the 2016 presidential election.

“Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate longstanding department policy, and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation,” one source tells ABC News.

Additionally, the report will criticize Comey for failing to consult with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch before issuing his scathing statement on Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, which he called “extremely careless.”

President Donald Trump has been hyping up the upcoming inspector general’s report into Comey’s actions during the 2016 election as a potential vindication for his decision to fire the former FBI director. However, ABC News’ report suggests that, if anything, the report will criticize Comey for breaking protocols in ways that harmed Hillary Clinton’s campaign — not Trump’s campaign.
Click to expand...

CS natureboy · Jun 6, 2018

The only reason a person needs immunity is when they have broke the law and are afraid they will go to prison for the crimes they have committed.

McCabe seeking immunity for Senate testimony on Clinton email probe
By John Bowden - 06/05/18 08:09 PM EDT

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeMcCabe seeking immunity for Senate testimony on Clinton email probe CNN reported

shootersa · Jun 6, 2018

See, it's finally getting good.

Be careful what you wish for people, you just might get it.

Shooter suspects a number of people, current and former Government royalty, are going to find the going just a bit tougher going forward.

That soap on the floor? Best just leave it be ...............

Log in or Sign up

CS natureboy Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

JimmyCrackPorn Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

deleted user 777 698 Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Fired Hours Before He Can Claim Retirement

Log in or Sign up

CS natureboy Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

JimmyCrackPorn Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

deleted user 777 698 Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

CS natureboy Porn Star

shootersa Frisky Feline

Useful Searches