What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trump and the FBI (1 Viewer)

What if Barr acts politically in which investigations he authorizes or doesn't authorize?  What if Barr acts in a way that warrants an investigation?  Does that fall to the House Oversight Committee?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Why are trump supporters in favor of this given one big claim or charge was that Lynch and Obama had improperly interfered in the FBI investigations?
Click to expand...
Are you not in favor of this?  I think this is good for America.  This shouldn't be viewed as partisan.  

The AG putting their name on the blame line is a good thing.  This is Barr providing more oversight on the FBI than the Obama Era.  

 
The Z Machine said:
What if Barr acts politically in which investigations he authorizes or doesn't authorize?  What if Barr acts in a way that warrants an investigation?  Does that fall to the House Oversight Committee?
Click to expand...
Then he is on record doing it.  I don't see that as a bad thing.  This slippery slope is a poor one.  

 
Max Power said:
Are you not in favor of this?  I think this is good for America.  This shouldn't be viewed as partisan.  

The AG putting their name on the blame line is a good thing.  This is Barr providing more oversight on the FBI than the Obama Era.  
Click to expand...
No I’m not. The whole discussion about the bad old days of Hoover were all about this.

Oversight comes from Congress, IGs and independent bodies, not a political appointee and the President himself. This is madness IMO. The absolute worst claims were that Lynch and Obama were personally driving investigations, and now we do this? I think it’s madness.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
No I’m not. The whole discussion all out the bad old days of Hoover were all about this.

Oversight comes from Congress, IGs and independent bodies, not a political appointee and the President himself. This is madness IMO. The absolute worst claims were that Lynch and Obama were personally driving investigations, and now we do this? I think it’s madness.
Click to expand...
100% disagree.  Like I said, now it won't be a claim that someone was doing this, it will be a fact.  I think it's good for America.

Do you really want the FBI to acting the same way during the Trump years that it did under the Obama years?

 
It also makes the AG in the middle of every political controversy. So the SDNY of Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman.... is now subject to approval from Barr? And if we hear of a Biden investigation we can assume the AG himself is overseeing it? It’s all political now.

 
Max Power said:
100% disagree.  Like I said, now it won't be a claim that someone was doing this, it will be a fact.  I think it's good for America.

Do you really want the FBI to acting the same way during the Trump years that it did under the Obama years?
Click to expand...
Doing what - politically driving investigations like was accused? No! It’s awful.

Yes, actually, I think autonomy and independence are needed. None of the convictions or indictments have been overturned.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It also makes the AG in the middle of every political controversy. So the SDNY of Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman.... is now subject to approval from Barr? And if we hear of a Biden investigation we can assume the AG himself is overseeing it? It’s all political now.
Click to expand...
It was all political before.  Just hidden from the Public.  Would you rather Trump have the FBI investigate these candidates behind everyone's back?  

 
Max Power said:
It was all political before.  Just hidden from the Public.  Would you rather Trump have the FBI investigate these candidates behind everyone's back?  
Click to expand...
Man no it’s not - there’s a process for determining a predicate for an investigation. Horowitz independently looked at that and found there was and that it was properly done.

 
It's like the flip side of needing a non-military officer to lead the DoD.  Civilian oversight of the military is important.  Similarly, apolitical oversight of the DoJ is also important.

 
Max Power said:
100% disagree.  Like I said, now it won't be a claim that someone was doing this, it will be a fact.  I think it's good for America.

Do you really want the FBI to acting the same way during the Trump years that it did under the Obama years?
Click to expand...
Does this article change your mind?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/lindsey-graham-william-barr-rudy-giuliani-lev-parnas-ukraine-trump.html

You want Rudy going around doing secret investigations as Trump's personal attorney and non-government employee, then reporting back to Barr.  If the FBI thinks this smells fishy (which it does), then they need to get approval to investigate from Barr?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Flynn, Stone, and Manafort will be pardoned in mid to late November. Mark it down.
Click to expand...
I predict that he'll wait until the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December.

(i.e., the day after the Electoral College casts their votes. Don't want any faithless electors going rogue.)

 
Kerri Kupec, a DOJ spokesperson, said on Tuesday afternoon that DOJ officials did not consult with the White House regarding their decision to override the initial sentencing recommendation.

She also said the decision was not a response to the president’s tweet, and that Barr was not aware of Trump’s views before the department decided to override the recommendation. That decision was made last night, she said.
Click to expand...
TDB

- Today 2 of the 4 prosecutors on Stone's case have resigned.

 
So we are supposed to believe that Barr sent this pleading (over the heads of the attorneys prosecuting the case) all on his own without instruction from Trump or others in the WH?  Just cuz he thought it was a good idea?

When all the crap comes out about this admin, Mr. Barr will not be looked at fondly.  I bet Jeff Sessions is thanking his lucky stars he got out when he did.

 
Since the 1973 OLC memo our DOJ's, white houses, and courts have been gradually layering the executive branch with insulation, which is the complete opposite of our federalist-republican model. Somebody without say the 'nuance' or subtlety to appreciate it just ran right through it with brute force.

 
Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.

But officials from the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency have told Mr. Durham and his investigators that such an interpretation is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of how the intelligence community functions, the people said. National security officials are typically cautious about sharing their most delicate information, like source identities, even with other agencies inside the executive branch.

Mr. Durham’s questioning is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies, like Mr. Brennan, who has been an outspoken critic of the president. Mr. Barr, who is overseeing the investigation, has come under attack in recent days over senior Justice Department officials’ intervention to lighten a prison sentencing recommendation by lower-level prosecutors for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr.
Click to expand...
NYT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Justice Dept. Is Investigating C.I.A. Resistance to Sharing Russia Secrets

The prosecutor was assigned by the attorney general to scrutinize the agents and analysts who sought to understand Russia’s covert operation to help Donald J. Trump win the 2016 election.

Full NYT article:

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials investigating the government’s response to Russia’s election interference in 2016 appear to be hunting for a basis to accuse Obama-era intelligence officials of hiding evidence or manipulating analysis about Moscow’s covert operation, according to people familiar with aspects of the inquiry.

Since his election, President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies that concluded that Russia secretly tried to help him win, fostering a narrative that they sought to delegitimize his victory. He has long promoted the investigation by John H. Durham, the prosecutor examining their actions, as a potential pathway to proving that a deep-state cabal conspired against him.

Questions asked by Mr. Durham, who was assigned by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize the early actions of law enforcement and intelligence officials struggling to understand the scope of Russia’s scheme, suggest that Mr. Durham may have come to view with suspicion several clashes between analysts at different intelligence agencies over who could see each other’s highly sensitive secrets, the people said.

Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.

But officials from the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency have told Mr. Durham and his investigators that such an interpretation is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of how the intelligence community functions, the people said. National security officials are typically cautious about sharing their most delicate information, like source identities, even with other agencies inside the executive branch.

Mr. Durham’s questioning is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies, like Mr. Brennan, who has been an outspoken critic of the president. Mr. Barr, who is overseeing the investigation, has come under attack in recent days over senior Justice Department officials’ intervention to lighten a prison sentencing recommendation by lower-level prosecutors for Mr. Trump’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr.

A spokesman for Mr. Durham declined to comment. The C.I.A. and the National Security Agency also declined to comment. The people familiar with aspects of Mr. Durham’s investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Thursday evening, Mr. Brennan was asked to respond to this article. He both dismissed Mr. Durham’s apparent line of inquiry and portrayed it as dangerous.

“It’s kind of silly,” Mr. Brennan said. “Is there a criminal investigation now on analytic judgments and the activities of C.I.A. in terms of trying to protect our national security? I’m certainly willing to talk to Mr. Durham or anybody else who has any questions about what we did during this period of 2016.”

But, Mr. Brennan added, “It clearly, I think, is another indication that Donald Trump is using the Department of Justice to go after his enemies any way he can.”

The Durham investigation has rattled current and former intelligence officers. Little precedent exists for a criminal prosecutor to review the analytic judgment-making process of intelligence agencies, said Michael Morrell, a former acting C.I.A. director who left the government in 2013.

“This whole thing is so abnormal,” Mr. Morrell said.

Prosecutors are ill equipped to assess how analysts work, he added. “The bar for making a legal judgment is really high. The bar for an analytic decision is much lower,” Mr. Morrell said. “So he is going to get the wrong answer if he tries to figure out if they had enough information to make this judgment.”

But other intelligence officials, according to an American official, are reserving judgment about Mr. Durham, who previously spent years investigating the C.I.A. over its torture program and its destruction of interrogation videotapes without charging anyone with a crime. Two detainees died in the agency’s custody.

Mr. Durham is a longtime federal prosecutor who has repeatedly been asked, under administrations of both parties, to investigate accusations of wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Mr. Trump appointed him as the United States attorney for Connecticut in 2018.

The Justice Department has declined to talk about Mr. Durham’s work in meaningful detail, but he has been said to be interested in how the intelligence community came up with its analytical judgments — including its assessment that Russia was not merely sowing discord, but specifically sought to help Mr. Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

The Justice Department inspector general, who released the results late last year of an inquiry into aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation, found no documentary or testimonial evidence senior law enforcement and intelligence officials had engaged in a high-level conspiracy to sabotage Mr. Trump, the narrative the president and his supporters continue to embrace.

Mr. Durham’s questions shed additional light on where he may be going.

In recent months, Mr. Durham and his team have examined emails among a small group of intelligence analysts from multiple agencies, including the C.I.A., F.B.I. and National Security Agency, who worked together to assess the Russian operation. Investigators have interviewed those analysts and their supervisors about the motivations behind several episodes in which some sought access to delicate information from the other agencies and were told — initially, at least — that they could not see it.

One fight, they said, concerned the identity and placement of a C.I.A. source inside the Kremlin. Analysts at the National Security Agency wanted to know more about him to weigh the credibility of his information. The C.I.A. was initially reluctant to share details about the Russian’s identity but eventually relented.

But officials disagreed about how much weight to give the source’s information, and the intelligence community’s eventual assessment apparently reflected that division. While the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. concluded with “high confidence” that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was specifically trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, the National Security Agency agreed but said it had only “moderate confidence.”

The informant and his family were extracted from Russia in 2017 and resettled in the United States. Notably, the source had initially refused to leave when American officials proposed getting him out for his own safety, raising suspicions about whether he might be a double agent. It is not clear whether Mr. Durham has interviewed the informant.

A second fight that Mr. Durham is focused on, the people said, centered on a certain data set. The nature of the data and of the dispute remains unclear, though one person suggested that the disagreement concerned whether N.S.A. analysts could see the raw information or whether the C.I.A., before sharing it, needed to filter the data to mask names and other identifying details about Americans and American organizations.

The filtering process is a routine part of how spy agencies share foreign intelligence with each other under guidelines imposed by the attorney general. The rules permit exceptions in cases where the identities are necessary to understand the information, which can lead to disputes about whether that standard has been met.

Officials also differed over access to unclassified emails of American officials that the Russian government had previously hacked, including at the White House and State Department.

A foreign ally’s intelligence service had obtained its own copy of the stolen messages and provided drives with another reproduction of them to the United States government. Investigators, including at the F.B.I., wanted to look at those files. They argued that the Russian hackers’ chosen focus while the Kremlin’s election interference operation was gearing up might shed light on that operation.

But an index of the messages compiled by the unnamed foreign ally showed that they included emails from President Barack Obama as well as members of Congress. Mr. Obama’s White House counsel, W. Neil Eggleston, decided that investigators should not open the drives, citing executive privilege and the possibility of a separation-of-powers uproar if the F.B.I. sifted through lawmakers’ private messages.

One problem in making sense of these disputes between the intelligence agencies nearly four years later, several people said, is that officials did not caveat their emails with detailed descriptions of their motivations and rationales for balking. That has left the messages open to multiple potential readings.

The analysts could have been engaged in standard bureaucratic behavior like obeying the filtering process or hoarding sensitive information. Or perhaps they were trying to cover something up. The questions asked by Mr. Durham and his team suggest they are looking for any potential basis to support making the latter reading, officials said.

Mr. Durham also asked questions that appear aimed at understanding how analysts reached their conclusion and who drove that process, the people said, and whether and how information from foreign governments or the C.I.A. played any role in stoking suspicions at the F.B.I. about Trump campaign links to Russia.

Standards issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence require analysts to follow procedures aimed at ensuring objective, neutral and independent evaluations of the facts.

Mr. Durham has interviewed F.B.I. officials and agents who worked on the bureau’s Russia investigation, called Crossfire Hurricane, and for the special counsel who took over the inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III. They have also interviewed C.I.A. analysts.

Mr. Durham and his team also interviewed around a half-dozen current and former officials and analysts at the National Security Agency, including its former director, the retired Adm. Michael S. Rogers, last summer and again last fall. The Intercept first reported the interviews of Admiral Rogers.

But Mr. Durham has not interviewed the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, his onetime deputy Andrew G. McCabe or Mr. Brennan. Mr. Durham has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A. to learn what he told other officials, including Mr. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

Mr. Trump has targeted all three former top officials as he has sought to foster a narrative that it was illegitimate for government investigators to scrutinize links between his campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks and that he was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy to sabotage him for political reasons — a push that led to the Durham inquiry.

 
The flare-up over the Stone case comes against a backdrop of growing behind-the-scenes anger from the president toward the Justice Department — more about whom the department has not charged with crimes than about whom it has charged, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Trump has repeatedly complained about FBI Director Christopher A. Wray in recent months, saying that Wray has not done enough to change the FBI’s culture, purge the bureau of people who are disloyal to him or change policies after violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

He has also tweeted many times that he thinks Comey should be charged with crimes, and he was particularly upset that no charges were filed over the former FBI director’s handling of memos about his interactions with Trump. An inspector general report faulted the former director for keeping some of those memos at his home and for arranging for the contents of one of the memos to be shared with a reporter after Comey was fired in 2017.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred Comey’s handling of the memos to prosecutors for possible criminal prosecution, but lawyers quickly determined it was not a close call and did not seek to build a case.

That sent Trump into a rage, according to people briefed on his comments. He complained so loudly and swore so frequently in the Oval Office that some of his aides discussed it for days, these people said. Trump repeatedly said that Comey deserved to be charged, according to their account.

“Can you [expletive] believe they didn’t charge him?” Trump said on the night of the decision, these people said. Trump has also wanted charges filed against Comey’s former deputy, Andrew McCabe. A separate inspector general investigation concluded that McCabe lied to investigators about his role in authorizing disclosures for a Wall Street Journal story in October 2016 about internal FBI tensions over an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. A grand jury in Washington seemed poised to make a decision on the case last year before fizzling into inaction.

Trump’s anger over the lack of charges against FBI personnel flared again in January, prompted by two unrelated developments, according to people familiar with the matter.

First, prosecutors updated their position in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying a sentence of some prison time would be appropriate. Around the same time, The Washington Post reported that U.S. Attorney John Huber in Utah — tapped years earlier to reinvestigate several issues related to vague allegations of corruption against Hillary Clinton — had quietly wound down his work after finding nothing of consequence.

Those two developments further enraged the president, according to people familiar with the discussions. These people said that while the public debate in recent days has focused on leniency for Stone, the president is more upset that the Justice Department has not been tougher on his perceived enemies.

In the president’s mind, it is unacceptable that people such as Comey and McCabe have not been charged, particularly if people such as Stone and Flynn are going to be treated harshly, these people said.

In recent weeks, these people said, the president’s anger has focused increasingly on Jessie Liu, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, whose office has been handling many of the cases related to Comey and other former FBI officials.

That office has recently conducted interviews in a leak inquiry, eyeing senior FBI officials over news stories in 2017 that discussed a top-secret Russian intelligence document that influenced Comey’s decision-making in 2016. Many of investigators’ questions have seemed focused on the former FBI director.
Click to expand...
Wapo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Complete and Total exoneration for McCabe

The Justice Department will not bring charges against former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators about a media disclosure, according to people familiar with the matter and McCabe’s legal team, ending a long-running inquiry into a top law enforcement official who authorized the bureau to investigate President Trump and soon became the commander in chief’s political punching bag.
Click to expand...

 
Of course neither Comey or McCabe were charged.  Prosecutors don't indict cops unless it's really really egregious. There's a brotherhood. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The IG report for any so interested.
Click to expand...
@Bozeman Bruiser - The original DOJ IG Horowitz report was posted here. It was also discussed above and after, including detail about McCabe.

The decision by the grand jury to decline prosecution is in in this thread, and IIRC so is the decision by the Trump/Barr DOJ to deny prosecution. However the only reason we know about this is because of an independent FOIA lawsuit.

This is some of the detail from the latest hearing in that case.

This is Judge Walton during the 9/30/19 hearing:

"I don't think people like the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted. I just think it's a banana republic when we go down that road."
Click to expand...
"I'm just happy when I was in the Justice Department those type of things were not taking place that were putting either perceived or actual pressure on the office as to whether you prosecute somebody for a criminal offense."
Click to expand...
- He was talking about the prosecution of McCabe.

Also this from November:

A federal judge on Thursday questioned whether the U.S. Justice Department had “manipulated” him into stalling the release of records related to Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who has faced a criminal investigation since last year centered on whether he lied to federal agents.

At a hearing in Washington’s federal trial court, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton grew animated as he grilled Justice Department lawyers about their recent shift in a lawsuit brought by the watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. The group is seeking records related to an internal FBI inquiry into McCabe’s dealings with the news media.

For months, the Justice Department had argued that records should be withheld on the ground that they related to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding. But on Wednesday, the Justice Department abandoned that argument for keeping the records secret, signaling that prosecutors could be standing down from pursuing charges against McCabe. Prosecutors still haven’t publicly stated the status of any ongoing investigation.

Walton appeared struck by the sudden shift in the litigation, saying Thursday he had agreed to delays based on the Justice Department’s position.

“I do have some concern about whether I was manipulated. … It does cause me concern,” Walton said. ...
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
GordonGekko
NBC News Chuck Todd On Solving Trump For POTUS 2024 - "The Only Answer Is Death" ( 7/11/22 17:52 PST)
Replies
20
Views
666
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks
GordonGekko
MSM Silent As Drunk Driver Released After Killing Teenager He Falsely Accused Of Being A "Republican Extremist" (10/4/22 16:34 PST)
2 3
Replies
111
Views
3K
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top