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.

The investigation investigations: DOJ exonerates McCabe (1 Viewer)

https://twitter.com/jameshasson20/status/1186668861426491394

“It’s not clear what Gidley was referring to—Brennan has not been accused of lying to Congress.” Unreal.

Natasha is either deliberately whitewashing Brennan’s 2014 conduct or didn’t bother to do a 5 second search to find out what he was “referring to.”  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate

Russiagate spinmeister Natasha Bertrand apparently had no idea Brennan spied on the Senate, while it was investigating CIA torturers. 

 
The entire community of inspectors general in the federal government have issued a blistering rebuke of the DOJ's distortion of the "urgent" nature of the Ukraine Scandal whisteblower's complaint.

The 70 current Inspectors General - including the DOJ’s - state that the OLC opinion that blocked sharing of the DNI whistleblower complaint with Congress “creates a chilling effect on effective oversight and is wrong as a matter of law and policy.”

*********

“The legal authorities cited in his letter also support the ICIG’s determination that the whistleblower raised a claim of a serious or flagrant problem that relates to an intelligence activity within the DNI’s jurisdiction.”

“It surely cannot be the case that the DNI has responsibilities related to foreign election interference but is prohibited from reviewing the cause of any such alleged interference.”

“DNI has jurisdiction over the handling of classified and other sensitive information. As a result, the whistleblower’s allegation that certain officials may have misused an intelligence system also raises an additional claim of a serious or flagrant problem that relates to the operations of the DNI and therefore may properly be considered an urgent concern under the statute.”

“OLC did not find that production to Congress was limited due to a valid constitutional concern. Rather, OLC substituted its judgment and reversed a determination the statute specifically entrusted to the ICIG because of its independence, objectivity, and expertise”

“OLC’s opinion undermines the independence of the ICIG and wrongly interprets the respective roles and responsibilities of IGs and agency heads under the ICWPA.”

“Perhaps most concerning to the IG community, we believe that the OLC opinion creates uncertainty for federal employees and contractors across government about the scope of whistleblower protections, thereby chilling whistleblower disclosures.”

*********

 
The entire community of inspectors general in the federal government have issued a blistering rebuke of the DOJ's distortion of the "urgent" nature of the Ukraine Scandal whisteblower's complaint.

The 70 current Inspectors General - including the DOJ’s - state that the OLC opinion that blocked sharing of the DNI whistleblower complaint with Congress “creates a chilling effect on effective oversight and is wrong as a matter of law and policy.”

*********

“The legal authorities cited in his letter also support the ICIG’s determination that the whistleblower raised a claim of a serious or flagrant problem that relates to an intelligence activity within the DNI’s jurisdiction.”

“It surely cannot be the case that the DNI has responsibilities related to foreign election interference but is prohibited from reviewing the cause of any such alleged interference.”

“DNI has jurisdiction over the handling of classified and other sensitive information. As a result, the whistleblower’s allegation that certain officials may have misused an intelligence system also raises an additional claim of a serious or flagrant problem that relates to the operations of the DNI and therefore may properly be considered an urgent concern under the statute.”

“OLC did not find that production to Congress was limited due to a valid constitutional concern. Rather, OLC substituted its judgment and reversed a determination the statute specifically entrusted to the ICIG because of its independence, objectivity, and expertise”

“OLC’s opinion undermines the independence of the ICIG and wrongly interprets the respective roles and responsibilities of IGs and agency heads under the ICWPA.”

“Perhaps most concerning to the IG community, we believe that the OLC opinion creates uncertainty for federal employees and contractors across government about the scope of whistleblower protections, thereby chilling whistleblower disclosures.”

*********
We've reached Monty Python levels of Investigators Investigating The Investigators Who Were Investigating.

 
https://saraacarter.com/horowitz-report-will-be-damning-criminal-referrals-likely/

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s much anticipated report on his investigation into the FBI’s probe into President Trump’s campaign is expected to be made public before Thanksgiving and the outcome is alleged to contain several criminal referrals, according to sources who spoke with SaraACarter.com.

...

Here’s what to expect: According to several sources the report will be ‘damning’ and will allegedly contain criminal referrals on former FBI officials. The report will apparently have at least two criminal referrals, said two sources, with knowledge. One of those criminal referrals is expected to be Comey. However, the Inspector General’s office has not been providing comments on the report.

Those referrals allegedly will be made based on information and evidence obtained by the Inspector General and may very well have been the reason Justice Department Attorney General Barr and Connecticut prosecutor John Durham opened a criminal probe into the FBI’s investigation into the President.

Some information has already been made public. In a recent interview with Fox New’s Martha McCallum Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has spoken with Barr, said “I think his report is going to be stunning. I think it is going to be damning. I think it’s going to prove that the system got off the rails and we need corrective action.”

 
https://saraacarter.com/horowitz-report-will-be-damning-criminal-referrals-likely/
So will Lindsey read this one?  Because I will.  And if there are criminal acts uncovered I will be happy to see those individuals prosecuted.  We are a nation of laws after all.  BUT, if THIS report is merely a smear campaign and further abuse of power, then I will double my already sizable donations that will be targetted at removing Lindsey Graham and his ilk from all positions of power.

Sound fair?

 
Nobody outside of the Hannity show will pay any attention to this at all, unless they’re really dumb enough to indict Comey. Which I doubt. 

 
Nobody outside of the Hannity show will pay any attention to this at all, unless they’re really dumb enough to indict Comey. Which I doubt. 
Why wouldn't they? They're in desperate need of a new distraction and this seems tailor-made for that purpose. After all, the "investigation" was created to that end, and while I'd like to think it would only appeal to the Hannitys of the world, unfortunately I think you're sorely mistaken on that point. This is like the Strozk texts times a billion. We haven't seen anything yet and every day is worse than there last. 

Trump has no scruples about scapegoating and "throwing under the bus" anyone that fits the bill, including 3/4 of the people that've worked for him. Sure, using the Justice Department to do it via indictment is totally repugnant to normal people, but that's why Barr has the job he does.

We've yet to see a level beneath which Trump won't stoop and I don't expect to see one anytime soon. If it continues to get bleaker for him, it wouldn't shock me in the least to see Barr, Graham, Trump Jr., Ivanka and the rest of the Royalists under the bus eventually. 

The question is will it work.

 
Why wouldn't they? They're in desperate need of a new distraction and this seems tailor-made for that purpose. After all, the "investigation" was created to that end, and while I'd like to think it would only appeal to the Hannitys of the world, unfortunately I think you're sorely mistaken on that point. This is like the Strozk texts times a billion. We haven't seen anything yet and every day is worse than there last. 

Trump has no scruples about scapegoating and "throwing under the bus" anyone that fits the bill, including 3/4 of the people that've worked for him. Sure, using the Justice Department to do it via indictment is totally repugnant to normal people, but that's why Barr has the job he does.

We've yet to see a level beneath which Trump won't stoop and I don't expect to see one anytime soon. If it continues to get bleaker for him, it wouldn't shock me in the least to see Barr, Graham, Trump Jr., Ivanka and the rest of the Royalists under the bus eventually. 

The question is will it work.
I dunno. Barr still seems to care about his reputation a little. It’s one thing to do what he did with the Mueller report- that at least can be defended up to a point- it’s quite another to indict Comey. Call me naive but I can’t see him willing to go that far. 

 
I could see Trump demanding that Comey be indicted, and Barr acquiescing to the request, even if it's low on merit. 
For any who don’t know they’ve already gone down this road.

The DOJ brought Comey to the criminal division - they rejected charges.

The DOJ brought McCabe before a grand jury - you’ve heard the expression a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich? Nope, the grand jury returned a bill of no charges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, I believe that the admin will try again and again to prosecute its perceived enemies, but thankfully we don't live in a gestapo state, and hopefully the civil servants are following the letter of the law, so those efforts go nowhere.

 
Why wouldn't they? They're in desperate need of a new distraction and this seems tailor-made for that purpose. After all, the "investigation" was created to that end, and while I'd like to think it would only appeal to the Hannitys of the world, unfortunately I think you're sorely mistaken on that point. This is like the Strozk texts times a billion. We haven't seen anything yet and every day is worse than there last. 

Trump has no scruples about scapegoating and "throwing under the bus" anyone that fits the bill, including 3/4 of the people that've worked for him. Sure, using the Justice Department to do it via indictment is totally repugnant to normal people, but that's why Barr has the job he does.

We've yet to see a level beneath which Trump won't stoop and I don't expect to see one anytime soon. If it continues to get bleaker for him, it wouldn't shock me in the least to see Barr, Graham, Trump Jr., Ivanka and the rest of the Royalists under the bus eventually. 

The question is will it work.
I think it will all be a tease. They are going to string this along for as long as possible with the occasional drop of a ‘bombshell’ the conservative media when they need something to change the narrative for a few hours.
 

I don’t think it will ever result in criminal charges, just rumors and leaks until, like with McCabe, they’re told to indict or get off the pot.

 
I think it will all be a tease. They are going to string this along for as long as possible with the occasional drop of a ‘bombshell’ the conservative media when they need something to change the narrative for a few hours.
 

I don’t think it will ever result in criminal charges, just rumors and leaks until, like with McCabe, they’re told to indict or get off the pot.
Enough to let Trump claim such awful wrongdoing...but it will be absolutely nothing.

 
For any who don’t know they’ve already gone down this road.

The DOJ brought Comey to the criminal division - they rejected charges.

The DOJ brought Strzok before a grand jury - you’ve heard the expression a grand jury will induct a ham sandwich? Nope, the grand jury returned a bill of no charges.
SiD, I just don’t know enough about this stuff so help me out.  Isn’t the IG independent?  I thought they were.  If so wouldn’t a report from them speaking ill of a person/situation (regardless of the political affiliation) carry significant weight?  Thanks.  

 
dkp993 said:

SiD, I just don’t know enough about this stuff so help me out. Isn’t the IG independent? I thought they were. If so wouldn’t a report from them speaking ill of a person/situation (regardless of the political affiliation) carry significant weight? Thanks.

Yes, the IG is independent. But it's basically their job to scrutinize a case with a fine-tooth comb, looking for any possible error or misstep, no matter how small. So it's pretty much a guarantee that the IG's report will contain at least some negative stuff about the FBI. That's their job.

Horowitz had previously criticized Comey for the way he went public about the investigation into Hillary (but at the same time, Horowitz agreed with Comey's decision not to file charges).

No matter what happens, both "sides" will be able to claim some sort of victory.
 
If these claims are true and can be proven, it should concern ALL Americans.  It isn't a partisan issue at that point.
 

Those documents will contain several classified pages of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the so-called ‘Gang of Eight’ folder (which contained exculpatory information), as well as the email chain between FBI investigators in the Russia probe and then-FBI Director James Comey. Those emails also include discussions with lawyers in the DOJ’s national security division. As previously reported, the email chains will contain information that prove the FBI knew prior to obtaining a warrant to spy on Page that former British spy Christopher Steele’s information in his infamous dossier on Trump could not be proven.  

It is also expected to reveal that the FBI knew that Steele was leaking to the media but then used those media reports as separate evidence in their request for a FISA warrant, known as circular intelligence reporting. Circular reporting is when a law enforcement official uses false confirmation by making a piece of information appear to come from multiple independent sources.

 
The email chains will contain information that prove the FBI knew prior to obtaining a warrant to spy on Page that former British spy Christopher Steele’s information in his infamous dossier on Trump could not be proven.
All of the dossier information could not be proven, or only some portions could not be proven?   Lots of things that are likely true cannot be proven, but with enough of those individual circumstances piling up, that likely rises to the level of issuing a surveilance warrant.

Look, if laws were broken in the process of gathering intelligence or getting warrants, then the people responsible should be prosecuted.  But I bet that the criminal statutes covering these crimes require willful or knowingly acting in bad faith rather than simply containing erroneous info that is only shown to be erroneous after the fact.

 
If these claims are true and can be proven, it should concern ALL Americans.  It isn't a partisan issue at that point.
 
They don’t concern me and here’s why: we know, without doubt, that Russia interferes with the 2016 election with the intent of helping Donald Trump get elected. We know that as part of this effort they contacted the Trump campaign several times. Therefore it was proper for the FBI to put the Trump campaign under surveillance. Full stop. The rest is nonsense; I have no idea what argument you’re trying to make here. 

 
They don’t concern me and here’s why: we know, without doubt, that Russia interferes with the 2016 election with the intent of helping Donald Trump get elected. We know that as part of this effort they contacted the Trump campaign several times. Therefore it was proper for the FBI to put the Trump campaign under surveillance. Full stop. The rest is nonsense; I have no idea what argument you’re trying to make here. 
Only that intelligence was manipulated in a way to support unfounded claims which allowed our government the ability to spy on our citizens.  I know you think the ends justify the means, but I disagree.

I really hate repeating the line, but if the shoe was on the other foot, this thread would be 500 pages by now. 

 
Only that intelligence was manipulated in a way to support unfounded claims which allowed our government the ability to spy on our citizens.  I know you think the ends justify the means, but I disagree.

I really hate repeating the line, but if the shoe was on the other foot, this thread would be 500 pages by now. 
IF there was a credible source...maybe.  But so far, we don't have that do we?

That they knew the parts of the dossier could not be proven is relevant how?  The media leak that this source claims was used has also been discussed before.  I don't think anything in that paragraph is anything new at this point.  Seems its the same recycled stuff from some of the first claims made that didn't go anywhere.

Im not sure that part there is all that much of a bombshell here at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SiD, I just don’t know enough about this stuff so help me out.  Isn’t the IG independent?  I thought they were.  If so wouldn’t a report from them speaking ill of a person/situation (regardless of the political affiliation) carry significant weight?  Thanks.  
Yep they are independent and I have respect for them as a profession. If your city or town doesn't have an IG they should get one. 

I was just pointing out that the DOJ has already pushed through two investigations, of Comey and McCabe, and both failed to get past the first stage. In fact the McCabe investigation probably came from the IG and maybe the Comey one did too. I'm not criticizing the referral from the IG, Hillary was originally referred by the State IG too. But an IG is not an actual criminal investigation, it's a civil body, they don't make criminal determinations. They can find what is possibly meriting examination for criminal investigation or indictment, but that referral by itself does not automatically result in a criminal investigation (Comey, Strzok) or an indictment (Hillary, McCabe).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IF there was a credible source...maybe.  But so far, we don't have that do we?

That they knew the parts of the dossier could not be proven is relevant how?  The media leak that this source claims was used has also been discussed before.  I don't think anything in that paragraph is anything new at this point.  Seems its the same recycled stuff from some of the first claims made that didn't go anywhere.

Im not sure that part there is all that much of a bombshell here at all.
We'll just have to wait and see.  I'm not familiar with Sara Carter, but if sources are saying there is something coming it's worth being on the radar.  She did say they have all of Comey's emails too.  If he said or implied something questionable, it needs to come out. 

 
I'm not familiar with Sara Carter, but if sources are saying there is something coming it's worth being on the radar. 
Sara Carter, in case you don't know, was caught - in texts by Sean Hannity himself, which were filed by the DOJ in court - basically just taking "info"/disinfo given straight from Paul Manafort to Sean Hannity and then Hannity gave it to her to discuss on his show as if it was an independent report. She used to work for Circa, and now basically she's a Fox/Hannity outlet. They get information from Manafort or his lawyers, Stone's lawyer, Giuliani (yes Hannity has been exposed as basically being a conduit for Giuliani and his Russo-Ukraine clients), and likely Trump himself or his aides. - I'm not going into the details of what she has reported there, which may even be accurate if unsurprising, because yeah maybe the WH is directly leaking this, but I thought you should know that much if you really aren't familiar with her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only that intelligence was manipulated in a way to support unfounded claims which allowed our government the ability to spy on our citizens.  I know you think the ends justify the means, but I disagree.

I really hate repeating the line, but if the shoe was on the other foot, this thread would be 500 pages by now. 
If the shoe was on the other foot I’m pretty sure I would have the same attitude. I’m not big on fake conspiracy theories, whether from left or right. 

The “ends” in this case is to distract from the President’s abuses of power. 

 
We'll just have to wait and see.  I'm not familiar with Sara Carter, but if sources are saying there is something coming it's worth being on the radar.  She did say they have all of Comey's emails too.  If he said or implied something questionable, it needs to come out. 
If what sources though?  This has been complete for a while with nothing out there at all.  And searching this stuff...the only sources im seeking saying stuff like this are very right biased places and people.

Also, I am seriously wondering why it would be a big thing of FBI was emailing saying they knew some of the dossier could not be proven?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If what sources though?  This has been complete for a while with nothing out there at all.  And searching this stuff...the only sources im seeking saying stuff like this are very right biased places and people.

Also, I am seriously wondering why it would be a big thing of FBI was emailing saying they knew some of the dossier could not be proven?
The source doesn't matter if the facts are there.  This feels like the opposite of the whistleblower argument.  

It would be a bad thing if the FBI knew or had suspicion the Dossier wasn't reliable and went ahead with it anyway.  The FBI needs to have some checks and balances, but it's potentially looking like they were not above board in their FISA request.

It has also been speculated in the linked article that the IG report is being delayed because of the Durham investigation.  Which just turned into a criminal investigation in case someone didn't know that. 

 
The source doesn't matter if the facts are there.  This feels like the opposite of the whistleblower argument.  

It would be a bad thing if the FBI knew or had suspicion the Dossier wasn't reliable and went ahead with it anyway.  The FBI needs to have some checks and balances, but it's potentially looking like they were not above board in their FISA request.

It has also been speculated in the linked article that the IG report is being delayed because of the Durham investigation.  Which just turned into a criminal investigation in case someone didn't know that. 
I think the source matters right now...because we are not sure if its fact or not.  And a lit of that quite is not just speculation, but opining on what it means.

Not reliable vs unable to prove are two different things though. 
 

Durham made criminal referrals  apparently...but not sure why that delays this.  And its not just that the release is delayed its the lack of actual damning leaks at all.  I think Durham and Barr happened because there was word Horowitz didn't find what Trump wanted.  Thats just my opinion though.

 
The source doesn't matter if the facts are there.  This feels like the opposite of the whistleblower argument.  

It would be a bad thing if the FBI knew or had suspicion the Dossier wasn't reliable and went ahead with it anyway.  The FBI needs to have some checks and balances, but it's potentially looking like they were not above board in their FISA request.

It has also been speculated in the linked article that the IG report is being delayed because of the Durham investigation.  Which just turned into a criminal investigation in case someone didn't know that. 
The checks and balances are the FISA court that has to approve the warrants. It's important to note that there were FISA warrants on Carter Page in 2013/2014, before a Trump campaign was even a glimmer in our eyes, because he was being recruited by Russian operatives. It's important to also note that the FISA warrants were renewed 3 times well into the Trump Presidency by Trump's DOJ. From what I understand, FISA warrants are not renewed unless they are uncovering new information and furthering the investigation.

 
A State Inspector General report has been released today offering new details on the 2017 removal of Lawrence Bartlett, the State Department's refugee admissions director, from his position.

OIG examined the case of a career member of the SES, Employee Four, in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM). The senior executive was removed from his duties as Director of Refugee Admissions and given several temporary detail assignments. Both Employee Four and his supervisor, Ambassador Simon Henshaw, the then-Acting Assistant Secretary for PRM, told OIG that they believed the decision to reassign him stemmed from pressure by a media outlet to remove him because of his support for refugees.
According to Ambassador Todd (who was at that time the Acting Director General of the Foreign Service), Christine Ciccone contacted him in October 2017 and instructed him to remove Employee Four from his position. According to Ambassador Todd, Ms. Ciccone said that the Office of the Secretary had lost confidence in Employee Four but did not provide any information to explain the rationale, and he never learned the reason for the loss of confidence. Ambassador Todd told OIG that because Ms. Ciccone worked in the Office of the Secretary, he did not view it as his place to ask any questions or request a more specific reason for the decision. Ambassador Todd speculated that Ms. Ciccone’s direction may have been due to a perceived leak in the PRM office or policy positions PRM employees were taking that were not in line with the new administration.
Based on responses to questions during Ms. Ciccone’s interview, OIG understood Ms. Ciccone’s position to be that she neither ordered nor recommended Employee Four’s removal. Ms. Ciccone stated to OIG that, after she shared the Secretary’s concerns with Ambassador Todd, it was his responsibility to “address the problem,” and she stated that he decided to remove Employee Four from his position and detail him elsewhere. However, when OIG re-interviewed Ambassador Todd after Ms. Ciccone’s interview, he reiterated that he did not make the decision to remove Employee Four but instead implemented Ms. Ciccone’s direction. Likewise, as described below, other witnesses (namely, Ambassador Henshaw and HR Deputy Assistant Secretary Philippe Lussier) concurred with Ambassador Todd’s portrayal of Ms. Ciccone’s guidance. Contemporaneous emails in which Ambassador Henshaw described his conversations with Ms. Ciccone also support the conclusion that Ms. Ciccone did indeed instruct Ambassador Todd to reassign Employee Four out of PRM. On October 23, 2017, Ambassador Todd and Mr. Lussier contacted Ambassador Henshaw to convey what they believed to be Ms. Ciccone’s order.

Ambassador Henshaw, who had supervised Employee Four for 4 years, saw “no basis” for the decision and described him as an employee who had done “incredible things” for PRM, such as quickly enlarging the refugee program during various refugee crises and then quickly curtailing it after the presidential transition, which he described as “faithfully implementing” the administration’s agenda. According to Ambassador Henshaw, he contacted Ms. Ciccone and asked her to reconsider, but she refused. He also asked Ms. Ciccone for a justification for her decision, but she only reiterated that she had “lost confidence” in Employee Four. Ambassador Henshaw described Ms. Ciccone as “evasive” in her response and stated that she simply repeated the phrase “loss of confidence,” although he acknowledged that she “mentioned” that “the White House” suspected Employee Four of leaking information to the media.58 When asked by OIG, Ms. Ciccone said that she had no memory of the conversation but told OIG that she recalled some allegations of leaking; she could not recall any specifics such as the topic of the leak, the recipient of the leak, or the source of the allegations.

Ambassador Henshaw then sent Ms. Ciccone an email with the subject line “120- Day Review of Refugee Vetting” that stated, “I wanted to let you know that we have removed [Employee Four] from all PRM activities.”59 Ambassador Henshaw also told Ciccone, “I deeply regret the difficulties PRM caused you and the Secretary in this process.”


- In short, this is basically a demonstration of how Trump and his aides have acted to purge or marginalize career State Department staffers.

 
Over all the report is entitled "Review of Allegations of Politicized and Other Improper Personnel Practices Involving the Office of the Secretary".

At the request of several congressional committees and the Deputy Secretary, OIG examined allegations of improper personnel actions by officials within the Office of the Secretary. In doing so, OIG reviewed extensive evidence, including complaints filed with the Department regarding political appointees, the email accounts of senior Department employees, and complaints filed by employees with OIG. After reviewing this evidence and performing further investigative work, including assessment of issues relating to particular employees, OIG identified five cases that merited further review. As described previously, OIG concluded that improper considerations played a role in the early termination of Employee One’s detail, but OIG found no evidence that inappropriate factors played a role in relevant decisions relating to Employees Two and Three. As to Employees Four and Five, the lack of documentation and OIG’s inability to gain essential information from key decision makers meant that OIG could not draw conclusions as to the motives for the personnel decisions affecting these individuals.

 
A State Inspector General report has been released today offering new details on the 2017 removal of Lawrence Bartlett, the State Department's refugee admissions director, from his position.

- In short, this is basically a demonstration of how Trump and his aides have acted to purge or marginalize career State Department staffers.
Ridiculous behavior and callous disregard for career civil servants.  Lots of "I don't recalls" were given to CYA on these terminations.

 
Chuck Ross

@ChuckRossDC

Good indicator that the FISA report is bad for some ex-FBI officials. On the bright side, at least most of them work at CNN, where they can defend themselves

 
So will Lindsey read this one?  Because I will.  And if there are criminal acts uncovered I will be happy to see those individuals prosecuted.  We are a nation of laws after all.  BUT, if THIS report is merely a smear campaign and further abuse of power, then I will double my already sizable donations that will be targetted at removing Lindsey Graham and his ilk from all positions of power.

Sound fair?
https://jaimeharrison.com/

 
Natasha Bertrand

@NatashaBertrand

The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Trump’s campaign in 2016, per @adamgoldmanNYT

“Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.”

“The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele.”

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top