Russigate Testimonial

Lots of testimony to cover. Lots of videos at the links. First, more on the Strzok testimony, something I missed yesterday somehow: Chairman Goodlatte: “FBI Lawyers instructed Peter Strzok not to answer many, many questions”… Of course, Strzok promised to answer all the questions Congress had.

Suffice to say it’s not a good look when lawyers representing the FBI are telling the central witness within a political conspiracy involving the FBI not to answer questions from congressional oversight.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte tells Martha MacCallum that FBI lawyers are instructing FBI Agent Peter Strzok not to answer questions from congress about the nature of his involvement within a DOJ/FBI conspiracy to stop a political candidate; and later to overthrow a presidency.

Additionally Chairman Goodlatte states the answers agent Strzok did give about his text messages was “not believable”.

Sara Carter: GRILLED: Strzok Questioned by Lawmakers. Washington Examiner: Lawmakers divided over Peter Strzok’s bias after 'feisty, tense' interview. Of, course, Democrats think it's just hunky-dory to have a totally biased agent running things, if he's biased on your side. But this one is interesting, from da Beast: Rogue FBI Agent Peter Strzok Swears: I Had Nothing to Do With Spying on Carter Page. Instapundit shouts the same reaction I did a few days ago:

HE WAS MERELY CAUGHT PROMISING TO STOP A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHILE POSSESSING ENOUGH LEGAL AUTHORITY TO TRY AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT: Peter Strzok Grilled for Hours Behind Closed Doors on Capitol Hill, Denies He Was Politically Biased.

But alas, we must leave Peter and deal with other testimony, that of Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray. For those with the time, all five hours of testimony here. Ace: Rosenstein Hearing: Rosenstein Won't Say If He Even Read the FISA App He Signed; Jim Jordan Accuses Him of "Hiding" Documents; House Votes to Demand All Documents Within Seven Days

.@repmattgaetz: "So, you won't say to this committee whether or not you even read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the Trump campaign?
Deputy AG Rosenstein: "I dispute your characterization about what that FISA is about, sir." pic.twitter.com/qOPNszI7b3

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 28, 2018

Fresh from Wombat-socho's "In The Mailbox: 06.28.18", Power Line: Rod Rosenstein – It Ain’t Me, Babe, also, House Vote Adds To Pressure On DOJ. From Breitbart: Fireworks as Jim Jordan and Rod Rosenstein Spar Over Documents. They Daily Wire: WATCH: Trey Gowdy Obliterates Rod Rosenstein Over Russia Investigation but Rep. Trey Gowdy Has Rosenstein Under Oath for 5 Minutes--But Asks 0 Questions. Well, asking questions doesn't do much good when they won't answer them. Gateway Pundit: “Finish it The Hell Up!” Gowdy Tells Rosenstein to Show Evidence of Wrongdoing by Trump’s Camp or End Mueller Probe (VIDEO).  FBI Director Won’t Say If Adultery is ‘Significant Vulnerability’ for Counterintelligence Agent, because that might commit him to do something he doesn't want to.

This should be fun: Court Orders DOJ to Produce Fusion GPS Records, Judicial Watch Says

“We are pleased another court rejected the Justice Department’s inexcusable stonewalling on documents of intense public interest — Obama DOJ collusion with the Clinton campaign vendor Fusion GPS to target then-candidate Donald Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.

“How extraordinary it is that this Justice Department is now under court order to stop stalling on releasing records about potential corruption in the Obama Justice Department!” Fitton added.

Washington Times: 'Even a blind person' can see Mueller using Manafort to 'target' Trump: judge

Judge Ellis, sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia, expressed dismay at the special counsel system and at Mr. Muellerin particular.

“Given the investigation’s focus on President Trump’s campaign, even a blind person can see that the true target of the Special Counsel’s investigation is President Trump, not defendant, and that defendant’s prosecution is part of that larger plan,” he wrote. “Specifically, the charges against defendant are intended to induce defendant to cooperate with the Special Counsel by providing evidence against the President or other members of the campaign. Although these kinds of high-pressure prosecutorial tactics are neither uncommon nor illegal, they are distasteful.”

In negotiations between Mr. Mueller and Trump attorneys over a possible interview, the prosecutor has said Mr. Trump isn’t a target — a specific Justice Department term that means the government has evidence the person committed a crime.

Legal experts say prosecutors will file numerous charges, creating huge legal defense costs, to force targets to talk.

Speaking of which: Mueller subpoenas former aide to Stone: report at da Hill. ABC: Special counsel eyeing Russians granted unusual access to Trump inauguration parties and this has to do with collusion with Russia because . . . ? WaPo: How the ‘Bad Boys of Brexit’ forged ties with Russia and the Trump campaign — and came under investigators’ scrutiny Is the crime being investigated meeting people not pre-approved by the elites? But, fair is fair, Trump goes after Robert Mueller by name for hiding 'conflicts of interest' – 

Gary Gindler at the American Thinker: The Deep State's bait-and-switch on Hillary and the emails. They were never really investigating Hillary Clinton

I don't know about you, but I had to reread the recent report by Michael Horowitz, inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice, at least three times until I understood the meaning of what had happened. Moreover, I had to (reluctantly) recognize the justification of the main conclusion of the inspector general: that the apparent political preferences of the Clinton investigators played no part in the decision of the Clinton prosecutors.

Why? Because the FBI, as it turned out, did not even investigate Hillary Clinton. The FBI had no such intention. Instead, an investigation was conducted into her email server.

The circumstances appear to resemble this. Crucial evidence was found at the scene of a crime. All the investigators' efforts were directed to discerning this and only this evidence of where it was made, where it was bought, how it fell into the hands of the criminal, etc. Everyone was so busy investigating the evidence that the search for a criminal was first postponed and then completely abandoned.

An off the wall one, but read it and see if it's plausible to you: Diana West at the American Spectator: Big Dots — Do They Connect? Steele and Skripal Revisited. Skirpal tied to Steele? That could be interesting. Remember how Glenn Simpson said someone had already been killed over the Steele dossier?

In a March 21 interview on the John Batchelor Show, Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier.

Copley further explained (or tried to explain) to Batchelor (who kept cutting him off): “The people who wished to see Skripal become quiet were people in Washington, the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, and people around Christopher Steele himself. I’m not saying necessarily that MI6 or the British government had a witting hand in it, but there are too many people who had an axe to grind to make sure that Skripal did not —”

Did not… did not what? Batchelor steps on the end of Copley’s sentence to interject a question about whether the Novichok attack on the Skripals could have been a “gangland” hit.