Monday, July 16, 2018

ThunderStrzok by Russiagate

Many more reviews of FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence  Human Resources specialist Strzok's performance, after some reflection, and they aren't good: Peter Strzok’s Affair is a National Security Crisis by Brandon J. Weichert at American Greatness, Seriously: Call in the Secret Service to investigate Special Agent Strzok by Ed Timperlake at the American Thinker, and Thunder Strzok - A Performance for the Ages by Melissa Mackenzie at the American Spectator:

Peter Strzok’s arrogance is the product of a corrupt FBI by Michael Goodwin at the New York Post:
Who is this jerk, I wondered, and how in the hell did he get to be a big shot at the FBI? And why are taxpayers still paying for the privilege of his malignant presence on the FBI payroll?

My answers can be summarized in four names: James Comey, Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray. They are chief culprits in the death of public trust in the Department of Justice.

The cause of death was murder, and it was an inside job.
And some new allegations; Aaron Klein at Breitbart: Peter Strzok Reveals FBI Debated Russia Collusion Probe Based on Trump’s Poll Numbers
Some people said, hey, look. Every poll is saying candidate Trump is likely not to win. Every Republican was saying that. Some people said as a result of that let’s not risk the source. Let’s go slow. But I indicated for them. What I am saying is. Look, we are the FBI. We need to do our job. We need to investigate.

While it isn’t likely according to all the pollsters and everybody that candidate Trump is elected, we need to make sure we are protecting America. We need to responsibly and aggressively investigate these actions, because you know what, if candidate Trump is elected, there might be people we need to be investigating that might be nominated for important security positions. Everybody in America would want to know that. Candidate Trump would want to know that.
Thread by @ThomasWictor: "(1) I read an article about Peter Strzok's father Peter Senior that made me think that Junior is a spy for Iran. Well, my dad was born in China, and I am most definitely not a spy for China.  Thread by @MWBarnesEsq: "1. A little tutorial thread re Comey, McCabe and Strzok, and a decades-old lesson from Stanford Law School days. A law professor was exhibit […]" Strzok et al's testimonies are designed to sway the weak minded, i.e. Democrats. Althouse: Trey Gowdy on the Strzok hearing: "Public hearings are a circus... I mean it's a freak show.", but he's very effective in them. Trump calls FBI agent Peter Strzok a 'disgrace to our country'. How dare he pick on the poor abused FBI Human Resources specialist?

And Strzok's gal pal Lisa Page? Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page gets closed-door grilling from House Republicans, by Kaie Bo Williams at Politiko, GOP Lawmakers: Lisa Page ‘Credible’at the OAN Newsroom,   PoliZette: Is Lisa Page Spilling the Beans on Former FBI Lover Peter Strzok? Prolly not.  Lisa Page Testimony Highlights Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Lied To Chairman Devin Nunes… by Sundance at CTH.

Paging Strzok - Why won't the FBI let Lisa Page answer key questions?
“Lisa Page is not an FBI employee,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, Florida Republican, told reporters, “but the FBI was here providing counsel and giving her direction as to which questions to answer or not answer and there is a question as to the propriety of that before the House.” Gaetz did not reveal which questions the FBI attorneys instructed Page not to answer, nor how many times the FBI had slapped on the gag order. Gaetz did say “I didn’t agree with her characterization of every text message and every piece of evidence. But we did not see the smug attitude from Lisa Page that we saw from Peter Strzok.”
On Robert Mueller's/Rod Rosentstein's announcement of the indictment of 12 alleged GRU agents in Russia on cgharges of hacking the Podesta and the DNC, Sundance at CTH: Rosenstein Delivers Indictments For 12 Russians – Then Buries in Lock-box of DOJ National Security Division…
The indictment is a grand exposition in explaining something without a single citation of factual evidence for how they arrived at the multitude of conclusions.

Consider this takeaway from a left-wing group who love the indictment:
“The indictment is impressive in its detail and the specificity of its allegations. It shows that Mueller has developed extremely good evidence. Where is it coming from?” (link)
You see, that’s the rub…. there is not a single piece of information explaining how Robert Mueller’s team arrived at their indictment conclusion. Just lots of conclusions.

Again, I repeat: the FBI was never allowed access to the DCCC, DNC and Clinton Campaign servers?
Well, the evidence should have been presented to the Grand Jury, and would need to be presented at trial. I don't trust a D.C. Grand Jury to care, and the cases will never come to trial, but regarding the evidence: Thread by @PaulSchmehl: "Today I want to talk about why the recent indictment of 12 GRU members is the purest baloney. In order to do that, I have to explain some th […]" ings about computer security and forensics, so you’ll understand why what I claim about the indictment makes sense." Read the whole thing. With a grain or two of salt. If Putin is half as clever as I think he might be, he would direct one of the indicted GRU guys (Potemkin might be a good choice for the name alone), to voluntarily surrender and force Mueller to put up or shut up.

The Dersh:  Indictment of 12 Russians Proves Special Counsel 'Never Needed' I guess he really doesn't want to go to any of those parties on the Vineyard.
"It proves — this indictment proves that we never needed a special counsel,” Dershowitz said. "This indictment could have been brought by ordinary prosecutors, ordinary FBI agents. There's no conflict here. It's Russians they are going after. There is no president; There's no people around the president;

"There's no conflict between the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and Americans — it's all Russians. Why do we need to spend 20, 30, 40 million dollars, have a special counsel appointed to do a routine national security investigation? [That's] number one."

The second point, according to Dershowitz, was that the guilt or innocence of those indicted would never be known because "they are never going to go on trial."
. . .
Dershowitz called the indictments "one-sided allegations," adding, "They are not proof."
Byron York at the Washington Examiner notes Nunes: Mueller indictment tracks House Intel report. They said the same thing "It was the Russians", but without the power to indict.
"It's pretty clear if you read the indictment, and you read our four findings and Chapter Two, even with redactions, you get most of the indictment," House Intel chairman Rep. Devin Nunes told me in a phone conversation Sunday. "If you didn't have the redactions, you'd get more than what's in the indictment, except for the Russian names."
Also Mueller indictment looks 'ridiculous' because it omitted Republicans targeted by Russia
"However, in the indictment, they leave out some really important people that they also went after, so the indictment plays like they are only going after the Democrats, when Bob Mueller and all his investigators and his lawyers know for a fact that they also targeted Republicans. Why is that not in the indictment? It makes the indictment look ridiculous."
Because that would contaminate the narrative that the Russians sole interest was in helping Trump.

Deep diving into the "Deep State," Mark Penn at Da Hill: The dishonesty of the deep state
Remarkably, we learned that special counsel Robert Mueller never even made the slightest direct inquiry into Strzok’s actions and behavior, other than to remove him from the investigation. Mueller, you may recall, for five months ducked answering congressional inquiries as to why Strzok and Page were reassigned, and we only learned the reasons when the DOJ inspector general sent these text messages to Congress. Mueller, it seems, was too busy combing every single email of the transition team, and later monitoring every single call of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, to stop and review how this bias might have tainted much of the evidence of his investigation and require new interviews of witnesses or other action.
Margot Cleveland at the Federalist: 10 Ways DOJ Abused Its Authority When It Spied On Trump’s Campaign Only 10?
1. Misled the FISA Court on Crossfire Hurricane’s Launch . . . 2. Misleading the FISA Court that Papadopoulos Colluded with Russia . . .3. Misleading Claims that Papadopoulos Was Connected to DNC Hacking . . . 4. Misleading Claims that Papadopoulos Interacted with Russian Agents . . . 5. Misleading about Page’s Connections with Russian Agents . . . 6. Political Bias of the DOJ and FBI Official Involved in the FISA Applications . . . 4 Abuses the Nunes Memo Highlighted
 Sundance again at CTH: FISA Abuse: It is the Risk, the Reality, and the Reason…
When you look at the timeline picture, and overlay the unlawful and illegal FISA-702(16)(17) users the picture is so clear it becomes silly to argue. The DOJ indicting 12 Russians based on forensic computer data evidence provided to the connected Mueller team by FBI contractor Crowdstrike takes on new levels of ass-covering. The motives are clear as day.

Crowdstrike was/is an FBI contractor. Crowdstrike, along with Fusion GPS, likely participated in the exploitation of the FISA database that NSA Director Mike Rogers shut down. Crowdstrike, operators and agents within the organization, could have even accessed the FBI/NSA database from servers connected to the DCCC, DNC and/or Clinton campaign. Looking at the timeline it certainly needs to be explored…. but who would do the investigation?
Thread by @DropTha_Mic25: "1. For over a year I have been harping on the DNC Russia Crowdstrike LIES. I have been more than annoying putting out thread after thread co […]" #DNC #Russia #Crowdstrike #Mueller Interesting, but another one to read with salt shaker in hand. But it seems reasonable to be skeptical of Crowdstrikes claims that the DNC hack was Russian. Too bad it will never have to be proven to a jury of fair minded people, no?

Streif at Red State: The FBI’s Lack Of Curiosity About A Foreign Power Getting 30K Hillary Clinton Emails Is Astounding. They expected her to be President, and to ask demand their help in cleaning up the mess she made getting there.

Emily Birnbaum at the Hill: Gowdy rules out Rosenstein impeachment. He's not the sole decider, of course, and while I generally like the cut of his hair jib, I think he gives a little too much deference to the prosecutor types.
 “I’ve had my differences with Rod Rosenstein,” the South Carolina congressman said. “I talk to him quite often privately, which again is a lot more constructive than the public hearings we have.”

Gowdy said if President Trump is unhappy with Rosenstein’s performance, “he can fire him with a tweet” since he is a Trump appointee.
Sure, and he could order a missile strike on California too.

Some red meat for the tin-foil covered head crowd? Kim DotCom: I Was Warned Not to Turn Over Seth Rich Evidence to Mueller

L.E. Dyer at The Lid: Liberal Media Sees A Russian Conspiracy In Every Trump Policy With Which They Disagree, Tom Trinko at American Thinker: The Left is Always Wrong: Election Meddling Edition
On every issue the left has two standards; one for the left and one for everyone else.  In this case, it’s perfectly fine when parties release false information that is damaging to Trump, but it’s the ultimate evil when someone releases accurate information that hurts a leftist; i.e. Hillary.

Allahpundit at Hot Air: Bolton: Why, I Think The New Mueller Indictments Strengthen Trump’s Hand In His Summit With Putin. I can see that. And that hardy perennial Trump resists Mueller interview, leaving decision on subpoena before fall elections Wake me up when that changes.

No comments:

Post a Comment