Will Sessions and Wray Join Nunes to Dig the FBI Out of Its Deep State Grave?

THE NEWS TODAY IS A QUESTION? Why is the Department of Justice so inclined to favor Obama insiders and the Deep State? • • • DEEP STATE STONEWALLING GOES ON AT THE DOJ. The Daily Caller News Foundation's Richard Pollock reported last Friday that : "The Department of Justice has refused to take any steps to preserve work-related emails former FBI Director James Comey had on a personal account that The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch requested under the Freedom of Information Act, [according to papers] the conservative watchdog will file in court Friday. 'There is nothing but complete silence about why the FBI has failed to take steps to preserve records responsive to DCNF’s request,' Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha will write in the filing before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Judicial Watch and The DCNF filed a joint lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act on April 25 seeking records, including emails, Comey produced regarding meetings and conversations he had with then-President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden and a variety of other political figures. Following the Justice Department Inspector General’s June 2018 report, which disclosed that Comey used a personal Gmail account for official FBI business, both groups sought a preservation order to assure no records related to their FOIA requests were lost or destroyed. Both groups requested US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly order the Justice Department to preserve all of Comey’s personal emails related to the two requests on July 27. The same day, Kollar-Kotelly took the unusual step of demanding an expedited reply from the Justice Department, ordering that the agency respond to the court by Aug. 1 and to respond to Judicial Watch and the DCNF by August 3." • BUT, in its reply to the court on August 1, according to the Daily Caller : "Justice Department US Attorney Jessie K. Liu continued to refuse to send an order to Comey or share its communications with the former director seeking the preservation of all his personal emails related to the FOIA requests. In its opposition to the preservation request, the Justice Department stated, 'even if they [sic] were a possibility of responsive records in Director Comey’s personal email, Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that such records would be lost without a preservation order.' " • The Daily caller says Comey has been "cagey about the number of times he met with and had conversations with Obama." We remember that in an email Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, wrote and sent to herself on Inauguration Day, she noted for the record that Obama, Biden, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and herself met with Comey. • Senate Judiciary Committee members Republican Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina discovered Rice’s email, and noted that it was at odds with his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which he suggested that his firsthand meetings with Obama were rare. Comey told the Senate Committee : “As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) -- once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016.” • JW attorney Bekesha wrote that the FBI’s assistant section chief for record dissemination “does not state that the FBI formally requested Comey preserve any agency records or potential agency records responsive to DCNF’s FOIA request. Nor does he state that the FBI asked Comey to return any such records to the FBI.” Judicial Watch, in its May 22 FOIA, asked for any documents or memoranda written or ordered written by Comey summarizing his conversations with any of the following individuals : Obama, Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. The DCNF originally requested FBI records that identify and describe all meetings between Comey and Obama on February 16, but it has required a lawsuit to try to shake loose from the FBI and DOJ the records the public has a right to see inder the FOIA. • • • GIULIANI URGES MUELLER TO WRAP UP BY SPETEMBER 1. On July 30, USA TODAY wrote that : "Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's lawyer, said his team was preparing a 'counter-report' designed to rebut any accusations that special counsel Robert Mueller makes in his expected report about the Russia investigation. Giuliani told USA TODAY that he believed Mueller's team is 'writing the report as we speak.' Giuliani's own team worked on its 'counter-report,' which he said would be released after his team reviewed whatever Mueller filed with the Justice Department. It's unclear whether the special counsel will file anything with the DOJ. Mueller's office declined to comment on Giuliani's comments." • While Giuliani says he has no firsthand knowledge of Mueller's plans, he expects Mueller to file something by September 1, two months before the midterm elections. Giuliani says : "I don't think Mueller wants to be seen as interfering with the election." • Giuliani said that, as a legal matter, there is no obstruction of justice claim. Mueller's team is looking into whether Trump sought to undermine the Russia investigation by firing FBI Director James Comey and attacking Justice Department officials such as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller. But, Giuliani states that Presidents have the unfettered right to remove FBI directors, and Trump had many reasons for taking such action with Comey. He said Trump has done nothing to impede the investigation. • Mueller is seeking testimony from the President, who has refused to sit down with investigators. In a clear warning to the President, Attorney Solomon Wisenberg -- the deputy independent counsel for Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater-Lewinsky investigation of President Bill Clinton -- said Wednesday night that he would “physically restrain my client” from testifying before special counsel Robert Mueller and walking into a perjury trap “in these circumstances” that President Donald Trump faces. “I think it’s suicidal. I think it’s idiotic,” said Wisenberg. “It’s a terrible strategy, and I can’t believe -- I mean, I would physically restrain my client in these circumstances.” Wisenberg appeared on “The Ingraham Angle.” Wisenberg told Ingraham that Trump and his lawyers should focus on what “the real key” is as they mull over whether to allow the President to sit down with Mueller : “Based on everything we know, they don’t have anything close to an obstruction case on the President. It is much easier to prove a case of lying to the government...than it is to prove an obstruction case, particularly based on what they have. It has to be material, but the threshold for a material lie is extremely low.” The New York Times reported last week that Trump is still pushing against his legal team’s advice for a sit-down interview with Mueller, who is investigating allegations of collusion between aides in his 2016 campaign and Russian interests. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump’s legal team, told Fox News’ “Outnumbered” that he’s a “no” on allowing Trump to speak with Mueller and his investigators : “Right now, I’m telling him, ‘No way.’ We’re not going to do it.' " • Mueller is reportedly most interested in asking President Trump questions about Russian collusion and obstruction of justice in the President’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey. CNN reports that Mueller has offered “to reduce the number of obstruction-related questions,” but would require some of the answers to be verbal -- not written. • Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz agreed with Wisenberg, saying, “It’s not about quantity. It’s about quality. All they have to do is ask [Trump] one question -- what was your motive? Why did you fire Comey? Or why did you ask Comey maybe to go easy on [former national security adviser Michael] Flynn? All they want to do is get [Trump] to say -- in context where he can be charged with a crime -- something that’s controversial and something that somebody else will come in and testify and say, ‘No, he told me something different. No, he told me that his motive was this or that,'” he added, noting that motives “are so vague and subjective.” If Trump isn’t extremely careful and precise in a sit-down interview with Mueller, and if another witness offers a different account, then Trump easily could “be charged with lying to prosecution officials,” Dershowitz warned. Dershowitz says : "So, in the end, I don’t think his lawyers are going to let President Trump testify orally at all. Look, the President may get his way. He says he wants to testify. But no lawyer is going to walk his client into a perjury trap.” • Professor Dershowitz also says that the factthat Mueller has referred a number of cases to the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York "just proves that you never needed a special counsel. They’re taking these cases -- more and more of them -- they’re referring them to ordinary US attorneys’ offices." Dershowitz said that even former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s case “could have easily been tried by the US Attorney’s Office in Northern Virginia” and “the District of Columbia US Attorney’s office.” Dershowitz asks : “Why do we need a special counsel? The cases don’t involve Russia for the most part. So we’re seeing more and more proof that we never needed a special counsel, that the special counsel will end up filing a report and getting some low-hanging fruit and getting some convictions largely unrelated to what his mandate originally was.” • And, to summarize all the noise about whether President Trump will testify, or whether a special counsel was ever needed, it is about the Deep State, present in the FBI and DOJ, going after candidate and then President Trump, to destroy him for defeating Hillary and becoming an outstanding President, despite all. • • • WHAT ELSE IS THE DEEP STATE FBI / DOJ DOING? • • STARRING IN A NEW TV SHOW. How about a new CBS series called the "FBI" that is, according to its creator Dick Wolf, supposed to "shine a light on the good work of its many agents." Mega-producer Wolf says that neither President Trump nor his attacks on FBI and other law-enforcement leaders were mentioned, but he alludes to agents' morale in recent times. "Positive images of the bureau make them happy. A lot of them, in the past couple of years, have told me they feel underappreciated for what the real work is," he told writers Sunday at the Television Critics Association summer press tour. Wolf expained that : "The opportunity to do this show has sort of fulfilled a dream for me. My uncle was an FBI agent in the '50s and '60s. I grew up not only idolizing my uncle but having a warm feeling for all the agents I met back then," he said. "They were great role models to have growing up." Wolf said FBI agents are "assiduously not political" in his work and added that he's held to that philosophy in his shows : "You can go back over the years. You can't find many episodes of any show I've done that are politically oriented because...if you do that, 50 percent of the audience is (ticked) off....We're celebrating the troops on the ground. The New York office has 1300 agents and there are endless stories in there. I'm not trying to change hearts and minds. People are going to get a very realistic view of how that office operates....It’s a good day when nothing happens. An enormous amount of time is spent in preventative efforts." Wolf said 'FBI' is no more of an effort to educate viewers about the bureau than 'Law & Order' was an effort to teach the law....I tell stories and this is an entertainment company. It's not a political PAC. As I've said in the past, I've probably spent more time with cops than anybody who doesn't have a badge. 99.8 percent of them become cops to help people. There are bad cops, but the overwhelming majority are out there on the street every day putting their lives in danger and not getting paid very much money." OKAY -- we'll give "FBI" a look and a chance. • • TELLING AMERICA TO VOTE DEMOCRAT. Former FBI director Jim Comey tweeted in July that : "This Republican Congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the Founders’ design that 'Ambition must...counteract ambition.' All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall....Policy differences don’t matter right now. History has its eyes on us." Comey told USA TODAY earlier in the year, when he was touting his new book, that : "I actually believe Trump's morally unfit to be President." ell, he would say that. And pushing for Democrats is in his own interest -- a Democrat House majority would undoubtedly keep him out of jail. • • DRESSING UP AS JOURNALISTS. We have the story of FBI agents disguised as journalists. The Intercept reported on Tuesday that in a federal court case, DOJ laywers said : "The FBI doesn't want the public to know more about how its agents pose as journalists during undercover investigations, confirming the most significant criticism of the controversial practice. The government acknowledged in a court filing that FBI agents who pretend to be journalists create a chilling effect, making it harder for real journalists to gain trust and cooperation from sources. The astonishing admission came as the FBI attempted to fend off litigation from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which has filed requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The Reporters Committee’s litigation involves documents related to an FBI undercover operation in which agents posed as documentary filmmakers from a fake company called Longbow Productions to investigate Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters." And, as we can guess, in response to the Reporters Committee’s FOIA records request, the FBI issued a "Glomar" response -- in which the agency neither confirms nor denies that it possesses records relevant to the FOIA request. In a motion filed July 23, Assistant US Attorney Johnny H. Walker argued that providing FBI documents about the Bundy investigation and others in which a journalistic cover may have been used would not only disclose sensitive investigative techniques but also -- in recognition of the chilling effect -- “would allow criminals to judge whether they should completely avoid any contacts with documentary film crews, rendering the investigative technique ineffective.” The Intercept says : "By admitting that FBI impersonation of documentary filmmakers makes individuals less likely to speak to documentary filmmakers, the government is highlighting the very reason the Reporters Committee filed this FOIA case : the chilling effect this government practice has on journalism,” according to Katie Townsend, the Reporters Committee’s legal director. “The public already knows that the FBI engages in this practice; the FBI’s widely reported ‘Longbow Productions’ front is the prime example. The public is entitled to understand how frequently, and under what circumstances, the FBI does it.” The DOJ Office of the Inspector General reported in September, 2016, that the FBI had instituted an interim policy that required agents posing as a member of the news media to obtain approval from the FBI’s deputy director, in consultation with the deputy attorney general. The FBI has declined to comment on whether this policy is still in effect. Townsend said : “Impersonation of journalists and filmmakers is not, in our view, an appropriate law enforcement tactic. When FBI agents masquerade as journalists, it threatens the independence and credibility of actual journalists; it can also jeopardize their safety. If a source believes that a journalist is actually a government agent, they may be unwilling to speak to that journalist at all. And in some cases, a journalist or filmmaker might be in danger if a source believes she or he is a law enforcement agent pretending to be a journalist.” The Reporters Committee’s litigation with the FBI is ongoing. The press freedom group has until August 29 to respond to the bureau’s argument that releasing documents would improperly disclose sensitive law enforcement techniques. My QUESTION is why would anybody want to dress up as a journalist today??? • • REDACTING EVERYTHING THAT IS NEGATIVE TOTHE FBI. Breitbart reported last Friday that the FBI released a series of heavily redacted documents Friday revealing almost nothing about its relationship with former British intelligence agent and Trump “pee” dossier author Christopher Steele. You can see for yourself at the FBI Records Vault < https://vault.fbi.gov/records-between-fbi-and-christopher-steele >. The 71 pages of FBI documents, released in response to an FOIA request filed by Judicial Watch, corroborate previous reports indicating that Steele was a”Confidential Human Source” (CHS) for the FBI, though the forms themselves do not explicitly name him. The released documents also confirm the FBI severed ties with the former British intelligence agent following an unauthorized media disclosure. Breitbart says : "The first page of the FBI packet, an FD-1040a form, reveals the bureau concluded Steele was 'not suitable' to function as an informant and sent a 'deactivation' notice to him. Steele 'acknowledged receipt' about the bureau’s move to end their relationship on November 1, 2016 -- just days before the US presidential election. The apparent cause, as stated in both the first and the penultimate documents, reads : 'CHS confirmed to an outside third party that CHS has a confidential relationship with the FBI.' [H]andling agent advised CHS that the nature of the relationship between the FBI and CHS would change completely and that it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with the CHS. Additionally, handling agent advised that CHS was not to operate to obtain any intelligence on behalf of the FBI.” Aside from these three forms, virtually every other page is blanked out entirely. The FBI has carefully redacted any information that would likely be negative to the FBI -- for example, their payment agreements, key dates of remittance, and the duration of Steele’s relationship with the FBI. How convenient. Because of the redactions, it isn't possible to tell when payments to Steele began, BUT it has previously been reported that he assisted the FBI with past investigations, including a probe of corruption in international soccer. We also know from pas disclosures by the Washington Post that the FBI reached a deal in October 2016 to pay Steele to continue the research that had led to what became known as the Trump Dossier. • • SENDING STRZOK TO MUELLER WITH HIS FBI AUTHORITY INTACT. Judicial Watch wrote on July 31 that 14 pages of FBI documents concerning the assignment of former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s operation show that Strzok insisted on retaining his FBI security clearance before moving to the Mueller team and confirming that Strzok played a pivotal role in the flawed Hillary Clinton email investigation. Judicial watch received the records in response to a December 2017 FOIA lawsuit that was filed after the FBI failed to respond to an August 17, 2017, FOIA request. In its alwsuit, JW seeks : " -- All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller. --All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI. --This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all forms SF-50 and/or SF-52, as well as any and all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity." JW says a series of emails reveal Strzok’s insistence that he retain all the authorities he held as a deputy assistant director (DAD) in the counterintelligence division (CD), including his security clearance, after his reassignment to the special counsel’s office. In a July 13, 2017 email to numerous FBI officials, some of whom are redacted, Strzok says : "Broadly, I need to be able to act at least in the capacity of my old CD DAD job -- approve NSLs [national security letters], conduct [redacted] declassify information, [redacted] agent travel, requisitions, etc. Of those, the most problematic and one of the most essential is declassification authority." In response, JW reports that FBI assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division William Priestap assures Strzok he will remain free to act just as he did while a deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division and, further, that he will remain on the FBI’s books as a “floating DAD” : "In answer to your initial question, while assigned to the Special Counsel’s office, you will retain your CD DAD authorities, to include declassification authority. Since you will take your non-transferrable declassification authority with you, CD will work to obtain another declassification authority slot for the DAD who is chosen to replace you. Assuming the 7th floor approves, you will remain on CD’s books as a fourth (floating) DAD. JW PReisdent Tom Fitton says : “These new emails show anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok’s ‘assignment’ gave the Mueller Special Counsel operation special authorities to target President Trump. We know Strzok can’t be trusted and the Special Counsel should tell us if Strzok abused his special authorities to target President Trump.” The emails between Strzok and Lisa Page raise the serious issue of his anti-Trump/pro-Clinton bias. Strzok also oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn. He changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” He also played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign. Anti-Trump?? -- just a little, we'd say. • • • DEAR READERS, Representative Devin Nunes is fighting to get to the bottom of whoe the real cuplrits in the FBI were and badly they strayed from their mandate in seeking the destruction of President Trump. On Tuesday, CNS News reported that Nunes, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said that Republicans who are investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation "are getting closer and closer to having the information that we need." Nunes said the Justice Department is now producing documents subpoenaed by Republican committee members months ago. Republicans now want President Trump to declassify some of that information so the public can see why and how the FBI launched its investigation, beginning with the FISA warrant on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. CNS News stated that : "Nunes indicated that the focus is on Bruce Ohr, a high-ranking Justice Department official in the Obama administration whose wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, the firm hired by the Democrat National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to produce opposition research -- the Christopher Steele dossier -- on Donald Trump." Monday, Nunes told Fox News' Sean Hannity : "Bruce Ohr is going to become more and more important. So the FBI interviewed Bruce Ohr at least a dozen times and put together reports. So once they fired (Dossier author Christopher) Steele, which at that point they should've not been meeting with him anymore, but what they had is, they had Bruce Ohr, whose wife Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS -- was going to meet and still get the information from Christopher Steele as they were trying to verify this unverified Dossier, or the Clinton dirt that was used to get the FISA warrant." • At a congressional hearing last month, under questioning from Representative Jim Jordan, FBI agent Strzok testified that the FBI did receive "material" from Bruce Ohr that included elements of the Steele Dossier. Jordan believes the dirt compiled by Steele went from Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, to Nellie Ohr, to her husband Bruce Ohr, and then to the FBI, which used it as a reason to spy on the Trump campaign. Jordan spoke to Fox News's Sean Hannity after the July 12 hearing where Strzok testified, saying : "The top DOJ official Bruce Ohr actually hands parts of the Dossier to the FBI. And remember, Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS who was paid by the Clinton campaign to put this entire Dossier together. This is the first time to my knowlege that the FBI has admitted they got parts of the Dossier from Bruce Ohr, a fellow DOJ employee. That's scary. This investigation started flawed with the Dossier." • Nunes on Monday night told Hannity that the media in 2016 knew all about the Steele Dossier, including the fact that it was "being generated by the Clinton campaign. You had DOJ, FBI, all those cast of characters that were meeting regularly with Christopher Steele. You have Bruce Ohr, the number four at the Department of Justice who I think is going to become a more and more important figure in this, and a lot of the investigative reporters should be looking closer at Bruce Ohr." • It is sad but true that the FBI under President Barack Obama and FBI Director James Comey became little more than a political arm of the Obama ProgDem White House. The once-hallowed agency has fallen from grace with a resounding thud. And, thus far, neither Trump's FBI Director Christopher Wray nor Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems interested in re-creating an FBI that is not just another part of the Deep State anti-Trump machine. These patterns of FBI / DOJ illegality and anti-Trump poltical partisanship should should make every American angry and active in demanding the truth by supporting the House members -- Nunes, Jordan, Meadows, Gaetz -- and others who are working tirelessly to dig it out of these Deep State villians.