Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

with the litany of pro-russian behavior of this president, and the undeniable contact his campaign has had with russia and now ukraine, and you want to blame the media for pointing it out/talking about it? 

I mean, let me turn around and ask you a question that gets to the core of what I said. In hindsight do you think that the American media did a laudable job of reporting related to the CH investigation, the Steele dossier, the FISA concerns, etc.?  Do you think that they were an asset to American democracy, bringing into focus the issues involved so that Americans could operate and engage from an informed place? Do you think that they challenged sufficiently the obvious disinformation fed to them by their "crime fighting" sources?

My answer to all three is "clearly no." Rather, they spent a substantial amount of bandwidth fixated on breathlessly promoting a fantastical conspiracy narrative rather than focusing on real shit. 

If you come away from this story arc with the take away "Man, my confidence in Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WaPo. etc. to serve as an unbiased source of information and reporting is only enhanced, they are doing a great service equipping the American electorate. I feel like they have really set themselves up credibly for the 2020 election." I am no not sure what to tell you.

"Democracy dies in the darkness." Indeed.

Should real shit like Helsinki, financial ties, and the many aspects of the story get play? Absolutely. Maybe more of that and less of this, less they feed into Trump's fake news narrative:

 

For Chuck: That is not intended to deflect from the GOP. The GOP is and has for a long time been been a morally rudderless party, withering on the vine as result of their failure to govern by the principles they claim to endorse.  That process began long before Trump. Hopefully it concludes contemporaneous with Trumps conclusion. 

   

 

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

The risk of revealing that you are not dumb - that you function in work at a hight level, presumably interfacing with doctoral candidates among other things - is that you are being dishonest.  What Anastasis has engaged in ceaselessly is more than bullshitting. It's rank dishonesty.  The more interesting question is what motivates it.

What do you call continually pimping the craziest conspiracy theory nonsense related to Trump-Russia on this board, long after it has been discredited, if not dishonesty surpassing rank bullshitting.

The servers are an unmapped trail that takes us to a place we have already arrived. Uh, pass the grinder man.

source.gif

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anastasis has a clear and pathological need to cast doubt on the Mueller report, as well as that of the OIG.  He is not currently (and never has been) acting in good faith. 

Yes, tell me about good faith jimmy. My perspective has been laid out, numerous times.  You've been in most of those exchanges.

  If you need the tl;dr, skip to the second quote. 

On 12/28/2018 at 4:21 PM, Anastasis said:

And as far as owning what I believe, here you go.  I believe that the Russian influence campaign, although technically sophisticated in the sense that they integrated multiple streams of data for deployment broadly across multiple platforms, was not particularly sophisticated in terms of content or the psychology involved. It was based on phishing a campaign staffer to expose the embarrassing internal communications of the HRC campaign and the DNC, and photoshopping pictures of jesus arm wrestling satan and posting them on facebook.  Real James Bond shit. To the extent that their efforts were successful, they were not because of some essential colluding counterpart (Note: I would do a 180 on this point if coordination along the lines of what I outlined up post, in terms of coordinated content development and targeting was demonstrated). They were successful because we are a fundamentally broken society, with dysfunctional political parties, a corrupted political system, and an electorate with an attention span that is measured in three digit character count. The Russians exploited the weaknesses that originated from our toxic  political environment, and yep, the responsibility for that is broad. Until we address the fundamental flaws that cut across almost every institution of our culture and society, until we make broad reforms in our political system including preferably a major realignment of our political parties, we're going to keep marching right into the turns of our political death spiral. We can and should flush out who exactly was coordinating with foreigners to influence American institutions and the election process. We can and should hang traitors.  We can and should knee cap Russia. But none of that is going to change the ultimate trajectory of the American empire. It will end as most do, the result of internal decay.  

  

On 3/24/2019 at 7:37 PM, Anastasis said:

Russia attacked the fault lines in the political system that we created out of our own dysfunction. Russia Russia Russia!!! is an external distraction that only provides cover for those that refuse to address our own political failings. On both sides. But it's just a punch line. 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What do you call continually pimping the craziest conspiracy theory nonsense related to Trump-Russia on this board, long after it has been discredited, if not dishonesty surpassing rank bullshitting.

The servers are an unmapped trail that takes us to a place we have already arrived. Uh, pass the grinder man.

Mueller testified that inferences made about a link between Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank server were flawed.  I am capable of taking in new information to adjust my understanding accordingly.

Why don't you ? Why do you refuse to acknowledge what the evidence shows ?  Or worse, why be dishonest about it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Mueller testified that inferences made about a link between Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank server were flawed.  I am capable of taking in new information to adjust my understanding accordingly.

I think that it is great that you have now comes to grips with the conclusions regarding the server conspiracy.  Glad that we won't have to recycle that one yet again. Do you care to update the board on your change of perspective regarding any of the other right out nonsense you seeded here for years on end? Do you have any regrets for straight up gassing this board out for 3 years with crazy ass twatter based conspiracy theories?  I know I would. Shit, as I indicated at the time nearly a year ago, I was willing to take my medicine if I was wrong about the use of Steele's material by the FBI and the FISA applications. I would feel bad if I had so significantly misread the situation, would apologize to the board, and probably take a little self imposed time-out. Lucky for you guys, turns out I was almost completely correct.

49 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Why don't you ? Why do you refuse to acknowledge what the evidence shows ?  Or worse, why be dishonest about it ?

You are hell bent on getting me to acknowledge things that I acknowledged months ago.  Good job triple, you have a real knack for super sleuthing. 

  

On 5/4/2019 at 9:19 PM, Anastasis said:

We've come a far way from the theories espoused by some here, Trump campaign organizing and funding hackers working under Kremlin direction, coordinating targeting and content development, to where we are today, which is a good thing I think.

I think that the Trump campaign actively sought politically compromising material that could be used to discredit the Clinton campaign.

I think that the Trump campaign did not give a fuck where the information came from, including if it came from sources with a slavic surname or foreign connections.

I think that the Trump campaign was a clown show unfamiliar with how polite company run these sorts of opposition operations. Through a screen of lawyers.  

I think that Trump actively and openly asked Russia to go after clinton, mostly as a rhetorical device in a series of pressers but probably with some real sense of yeah expose her shit if possible.

I think that Russia ran a social media operation, hacked the DNC, and hacked the campaign manager of the Clinton campaign.  The latter was a pretty basic phishing attack that a junior intern should be trained against. I think that the releases of that information were damaging, and brought into focus a number of the concerns that pre-existed regarding Clinton. Her cozyness with wall street, the foundation, general political issues, and aspects related to the impartiality of the DNC during the primary.  I think that a lot of people would like to deflect, rather than recognize that some of the inner workings when brought to light were damaging. 

I think that the Kremlin acted to stoke existing political divisions because our shit is all fucked up and we are a failing society at this point.

I think that foreign influence on American politics is problematic. I can list a number of countries that I have serious concerns about their profound influence on our politics. Russia is not at the top of that list, but ranks high.

I think that domestic interference in the election had a more measurable direct impact on the election than foreign interference. 

I think that everything that I said above is generally consistent with Mueller's report; however, if there is something specific in the report that you would like me to comment on, please quote it and I will be happy to respond. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What do you call continually pimping the craziest conspiracy theory nonsense related to Trump-Russia on this board, long after it has been discredited, if not dishonesty surpassing rank bullshitting.

The servers are an unmapped trail that takes us to a place we have already arrived. Uh, pass the grinder man.

source.gif

Two gifs!! And on the same page! Lord help me! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Have I not been acting in good faith?  Is that the implication here?

What do you call manipulating another persons post to support your claim that a separate poster is a pathological liar, in attempt to cover for the fact that your claim was in reality based on a simple lack of reading comprehension? Intellectual honesty? Good faith?  I mean, you tell me. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What do you call manipulating another persons post to support your claim that a separate poster is a pathological liar, in attempt to cover for the fact that your claim was in reality based on a simple lack of reading comprehension? Intellectual honesty? Good faith?  I mean, you tell me. 

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, but I'm sure in your massive file storage of surly/shaggy threads you have supporting evidence that make you think you've been wronged.

LMAO.  I act and react in real time around here.  What you see is what you get.  I might even contradict myself at times -- you know, like real human beings with good intentions can find themselves doing.  You seem to have a clear ulterior motive.  Whatevs, bro.  I'm sure you're about to drop a data dump showing how much of a shitheel I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I sense a longcat post coming that somehow proves whatever the hell Anastasis was talking about jimmyjazz. I didn’t understand it myself but was scared of being called stupid again, thus hurting my feelers. 

It will be entertaining, no doubt.  I'm willing to take one for the team.  "Bad jj, bad."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

What did you acknowledge ?

I ask again, what did you acknowledge ?

You've demonstrated your skill at pulling remote quotes, albeit typically useless, from the web matrix, but nothing ?  You're perfectly adept at rangey longcat posts deserving separate threads, but when asked for a basic response, repeatedly about your acknowledgement - that the Trump campaign publicly welcomed and privately sought Russian election interference to benefit Trump, and that Trump personally was in communication with Roger Stone around anticipated drops of goods stolen by Russian actors that were coordinated to optimize electoral prospects of Trump - when asked about that, you recoil to posting circular animation.  

you're a fake.  prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are sleepwalking into a Biden disaster in the 2020 election. 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.” 

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I ask again, what did you acknowledge ?

 

I post again, from over 7 months ago below.

 

Now answer me:

Do you care to update the board on your change of perspective regarding any of the other right out nonsense you seeded here for years on end? Do you have any regrets for straight up gassing this board out for 3 years with crazy ass twatter based conspiracy theories?  I know I would. Shit, as I indicated at the time nearly a year ago, I was willing to take my medicine if I was wrong about the use of Steele's material by the FBI and the FISA applications. I would feel bad if I had so significantly misread the situation, would apologize to the board, and probably take a little self imposed time-out. Lucky for you guys, turns out I was almost completely correct.

  

On 5/4/2019 at 9:19 PM, Anastasis said:

We've come a far way from the theories espoused by some here, Trump campaign organizing and funding hackers working under Kremlin direction, coordinating targeting and content development, to where we are today, which is a good thing I think.

I think that the Trump campaign actively sought politically compromising material that could be used to discredit the Clinton campaign.

I think that the Trump campaign did not give a fuck where the information came from, including if it came from sources with a slavic surname or foreign connections.

I think that the Trump campaign was a clown show unfamiliar with how polite company run these sorts of opposition operations. Through a screen of lawyers.  

I think that Trump actively and openly asked Russia to go after clinton, mostly as a rhetorical device in a series of pressers but probably with some real sense of yeah expose her shit if possible.

I think that Russia ran a social media operation, hacked the DNC, and hacked the campaign manager of the Clinton campaign.  The latter was a pretty basic phishing attack that a junior intern should be trained against. I think that the releases of that information were damaging, and brought into focus a number of the concerns that pre-existed regarding Clinton. Her cozyness with wall street, the foundation, general political issues, and aspects related to the impartiality of the DNC during the primary.  I think that a lot of people would like to deflect, rather than recognize that some of the inner workings when brought to light were damaging. 

I think that the Kremlin acted to stoke existing political divisions because our shit is all fucked up and we are a failing society at this point.

I think that foreign influence on American politics is problematic. I can list a number of countries that I have serious concerns about their profound influence on our politics. Russia is not at the top of that list, but ranks high.

I think that domestic interference in the election had a more measurable direct impact on the election than foreign interference. 

I think that everything that I said above is generally consistent with Mueller's report; however, if there is something specific in the report that you would like me to comment on, please quote it and I will be happy to respond. 

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

you're a fake.  prove me wrong.

Interesting coming from you - who told us about the frogmarch that would soon be coming out of the Bush II Oval Office. 

Now Bush is Michelle O's favorite and he hob-nobs with Ellen Degeneres. Another one of your breathless hot takes I suppose. 

You are not worth the effort. 

And I wonder if you actually work for the Dirty Tricks department of the Republican Party - since you rally Republican support for odious Presidents so well. 

Check yourself. 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, but I'm sure in your massive file storage of surly/shaggy threads you have supporting evidence that make you think you've been wronged.

LMAO.  I act and react in real time around here.  What you see is what you get. 

 

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I sense a longcat post coming that somehow proves whatever the hell Anastasis was talking about jimmyjazz. I didn’t understand it myself but was scared of being called stupid again, thus hurting my feelers. 

 

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It will be entertaining, no doubt.  I'm willing to take one for the team.  "Bad jj, bad."

 

Well it really takes all the fun out of it when you just concede the point without any drama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bernorange said:

Here's another order from Collyer. Probably flew under the radar, but this relates to the abuses that Rogers uncovered, which represents much broader invasive problems with the surveillance apparatus, beyond warrants and whatnot. But nobody here could have seen the latter coming.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

We are sleepwalking into a Biden disaster in the 2020 election. 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.” 

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.

What isn't a gray area is that the president of the United States willingly and knowingly accepted the aid of a foreign state to help get elected. In fact, he asked for it publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the Trump campaign actively sought politically compromising material that could be used to discredit the Clinton campaign.

I think that the Trump campaign did not give a fuck where the information came from, including if it came from sources with a slavic surname or foreign connections.

I think that the Trump campaign was a clown show unfamiliar with how polite company run these sorts of opposition operations. Through a screen of lawyers.  

I think that Trump actively and openly asked Russia to go after clinton, mostly as a rhetorical device in a series of pressers but probably with some real sense of yeah expose her shit if possible.

 

I recall this post.  Granted, that was from May 2019 and things have changed.  I'm not sure your present acknowledgement has evolved with new evidence.

 

your 1st sentence - who doesn't.  that's oppo research 101.  But there are applicable laws.

your 2nd sentence  - you still believe this??   ---> Trump knew Russia hacked the DNC.  Trump knew wikileaks was the outlet organ for Russian hacks.  Trump knew Roger Stone was the conduit for the campaign around pending drops and coordination of drops and Trump communicated with Stone during the campaign about planned drops.  Trump was directly in the know, knew it was wrong, and later directly lied to Mueller about knowing anything about the Russian military intelligence/wikileaks operation:

WaPo: 

"Testifying at the trial of Roger Stone — a Trump friend accused of lying about his own WikiLeaks-related dealings — Rick Gates said he overheard a phone call in which Stone seemed to make the president aware of a planned WikiLeaks release. Gates and other witnesses testified that Stone posited himself as something of an intermediary between WikiLeaks and the campaign, with access to insider information.

Gates said his boss, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, had told him that Trump would be kept updated on WikiLeaks’ plans to release Democratic emails — which authorities concluded were hacked by Russia.

The testimony from the former high-ranking campaign official indicates that Trump’s knowledge of WikiLeaks was more advanced than he has previously stated. In written responses to questions from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III last year, Trump said he did not recall receiving any information about WikiLeaks disclosures in advance, being told that Stone “or anyone associated with my campaign” had discussions with WikiLeaks about future leaks, or ever discussing WikiLeaks with Stone."

your 3rd sentence - you still believe this??  --->Trump knew where it was coming from and he partook in knowledge and awareness of the planning of it.  He was not "unfamiliar".  Trump did it even after being warned by the FBI in the summer of 2016 Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign.  Then Trump lied about it to Mueller.

your 4th sentence - you still believe this??  ---> It wasn't rhetorical.  Knowing what we know today, it was a compromising form of public acceptance.  Very reminiscent of the compromising announcement Trump was trying to get Zalensky to make last summer.

 

That's your grand acknowledgement??   it's shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

That's your grand acknowledgement??   it's shit.

 

I answered you, now answer me.

Do you care to update the board on your change of perspective regarding any of the other right out nonsense you seeded here for years on end? Do you have any regrets for straight up gassing this board out for 3 years with crazy ass twatter based conspiracy theories?  I know I would. Shit, as I indicated at the time nearly a year ago, I was willing to take my medicine if I was wrong about the use of Steele's material by the FBI and the FISA applications. I would feel bad if I had so significantly misread the situation, would apologize to the board, and probably take a little self imposed time-out. Lucky for you guys, turns out I was almost completely correct.

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I answered you, now answer me.

You choose to remain being dishonest before admitting being wrong about this.  What possesses you to be a dishonest troll on this thread is a curious thing.

And what there is to answer to you ?  You're drumming an intentionally distorted and embellished revision.  It's your opinion.  igaf about your ridiculous opinion.

Look where we are today in contrast to what was relentlessly mocked as crazy assed conspiracy theories about *anything* in the Spring of 2017 about Trump/Russia collusion, or the threat of *any* Trump affiliate committing any crime, let alone going to prison for it.  Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone - today all in prison or convicted and awaiting sentencing. 

And yet here we are, Trump is determined to continue with the same conduct for the 2020 election that we have now come to understand occurred in 2016.  Instead of attacking his opponent with the help of Roger Stone and Putin's Russian military intelligence apparatus and cutouts, he's doing it with Rudy Giuliani and (now indicted) actors funded by a high level Ukrainian mobster close to Putin who is also indicted and facing US extradition.  Join us in the present, guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

You choose to remain being dishonest before admitting being wrong about this.  What possesses you to be a dishonest troll on this thread is a curious thing.

And what there is to answer to you ?  You're drumming an intentionally distorted and embellished revision.  It's your opinion.  igaf about your ridiculous opinion.

Everybody here knows the right out nonsense you seeded on this board for three years.  The wildest twatter conspiracy nonsense piped right in. Even posters who are inclined to your point of view distance themselves from the weight of the nonsense you posted here, because it tarnishes relatively reasonable takes even by association. 

 

But I do like your style. Dial down the projection a bit though. 

tenor.gif?itemid=3893213

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would actually like to read that, but paywall.

 
  • Dec. 19, 2019

WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

Mr. Durham’s pursuit of Mr. Brennan’s records is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. The president has long attacked Mr. Brennan as part of his narrative about a so-called deep state cabal of Obama administration officials who tried to sabotage his campaign, and Mr. Trump has held out Mr. Durham’s investigation as a potential avenue for proving those claims.

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

The people familiar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry stressed that it was continuing and it was not clear what crimes, if any, he had uncovered. Representatives for Mr. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Defenders of Mr. Brennan have long maintained he did nothing wrong and properly sounded the alarm on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he told MSNBC this fall that he would answer Mr. Durham’s questions if asked.

“I feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community, and I feel very confident and comfortable with what I did, so I have no qualms whatsoever about talking with investigators who are going to be looking at this in a fair and appropriate manner,” Mr. Brennan said.

Mr. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has previously conducted politically fraught investigations, including allegations of wrongdoing in the C.I.A.’s detainee torture program. Attorney General William P. Barr appointed him this year to re-examine not only the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation but more broadly how the government uncovered Moscow’s election interference and dealt with those findings.

“He is not just looking at the F.B.I.,” Mr. Barr said in an interview broadcast Thursday evening on Fox News. “He is looking at other agencies.”

Calling it a “much broader investigation,” Mr. Barr added, “He is looking at all the conduct — both before and after the election.”

Mr. Brennan has come into Mr. Durham’s sights as he has focused on the intelligence community assessment released in January 2017 that used information from the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency to detail Russia’s meddling. They concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s chances by damaging his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Officials and analysts who worked on that assessment disagreed on how to treat two pieces of intelligence: the assertion that Mr. Putin wanted to help Mr. Trump win rather than simply sow chaos, and the contents of the dossier of salacious, unproven allegations about links between Russia and Trump associates compiled by a British former spy, Christopher Steele. His research, funded by Democrats, has been ground zero for conservative allegations that the origins of the Russia investigation were tainted.

“The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories — baseless conspiracy theories — in American political history,” Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016, publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the bureau did.

Mr. Barr has long been interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf, perhaps the intelligence report’s most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence.

The difference simply reflects the kinds of intelligence the agencies specialize in and how the United States learned about Mr. Putin’s intentions, current and former intelligence officials said. Mr. Putin avoids telephones, and the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic communications and calls, lacked strong intelligence about his intentions in 2016.

Instead, a C.I.A. informant close to the Kremlin was a key source for that finding. Mr. Durham has been trying to learn more about any internal debate inside the C.I.A. over the conclusion, former intelligence officials said.

Mr. Brennan told lawmakers at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017 the N.S.A.’s confidence level was the “lone exception” to the intelligence agencies’ otherwise united front about Russia’s interference.

Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, said the C.I.A.’s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow’s intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.

“I don’t agree with the conclusion, particularly that it’s such a high level of confidence,” Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.

“I just think there should’ve been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and especially for those who didn’t also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of confidence,” he added.

Mr. Durham’s investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele’s allegations in the appendix of their assessment.

Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump’s allies have long asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence agency’s assessment.

Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment, while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix. Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Mr. Steele’s information “was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with the other agencies participating in drafting” the declassified intelligence assessment about Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele’s information with the team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.

Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper about the bureau’s efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be “credible on its face.”

But C.I.A. analysts still wanted to leave the dossier out of the assessment, as it was not vetted. Mr. Brennan’s allies have said he was among the officials who wanted to omit the dossier from the assessment.

Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele’s information.

Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele’s material in the appendix. After BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment about Russia’s election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his decision to publicly state that the intelligence community “has not made any judgment” about the document’s reliability.

Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.

Mr. Brennan told Congress that he had no firsthand knowledge of any attempts by the F.B.I. to vet the dossier. Mr. Clapper went further, testifying at a separate hearing that no evidence existed in the entire assessment to definitively say whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russian officials. He also said that the intelligence community “couldn’t corroborate the sourcing” of Mr. Steele’s dossier.

Mr. Brennan’s defenders said he always kept the dossier at arm’s length, arguing against using its findings about the Russian interference campaign in the assessment. The C.I.A. viewed it as “internet rumor,” an F.B.I. official told the inspector general.

It is not clear how much information the C.I.A. has provided investigators, and a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. The intelligence agencies are continuing to cooperate with Mr. Durham’s investigation, a person familiar with the inquiry said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would actually like to read that, but paywall.

Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings

The federal prosecutor investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry is examining testimony by the former C.I.A. director John Brennan and seeking his communications records.

By Katie Benner and Julian E. Barnes

Dec. 19, 2019

WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

Mr. Durham’s pursuit of Mr. Brennan’s records is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. The president has long attacked Mr. Brennan as part of his narrative about a so-called deep state cabal of Obama administration officials who tried to sabotage his campaign, and Mr. Trump has held out Mr. Durham’s investigation as a potential avenue for proving those claims.

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP

The people familiar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry stressed that it was continuing and it was not clear what crimes, if any, he had uncovered. Representatives for Mr. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Defenders of Mr. Brennan have long maintained he did nothing wrong and properly sounded the alarm on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he told MSNBC this fall that he would answer Mr. Durham’s questions if asked.

The perfect gift for everyone on your list.

Gift subscriptions to The Times. Starting at $25.

“I feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community, and I feel very confident and comfortable with what I did, so I have no qualms whatsoever about talking with investigators who are going to be looking at this in a fair and appropriate manner,” Mr. Brennan said.

Mr. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has previously conducted politically fraught investigations, including allegations of wrongdoing in the C.I.A.’s detainee torture program. Attorney General William P. Barr appointed him this year to re-examine not only the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation but more broadly how the government uncovered Moscow’s election interference and dealt with those findings.

“He is not just looking at the F.B.I.,” Mr. Barr said in an interview broadcast Thursday evening on Fox News. “He is looking at other agencies.”

Editors’ Picks

The ‘S.N.L.’ Stars Who Lasted, and the Ones Who Flamed Out

Robert De Niro Thinks Donald Trump Is Worse Than Any Gangster He’s Played

Calling it a “much broader investigation,” Mr. Barr added, “He is looking at all the conduct — both before and after the election.”

Mr. Brennan has come into Mr. Durham’s sights as he has focused on the intelligence community assessment released in January 2017 that used information from the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency to detail Russia’s meddling. They concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s chances by damaging his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Officials and analysts who worked on that assessment disagreed on how to treat two pieces of intelligence: the assertion that Mr. Putin wanted to help Mr. Trump win rather than simply sow chaos, and the contents of the dossier of salacious, unproven allegations about links between Russia and Trump associates compiled by a British former spy, Christopher Steele. His research, funded by Democrats, has been ground zero for conservative allegations that the origins of the Russia investigation were tainted.

“The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories — baseless conspiracy theories — in American political history,” Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016, publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the bureau did.

Mr. Barr has long been interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf, perhaps the intelligence report’s most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence.

The difference simply reflects the kinds of intelligence the agencies specialize in and how the United States learned about Mr. Putin’s intentions, current and former intelligence officials said. Mr. Putin avoids telephones, and the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic communications and calls, lacked strong intelligence about his intentions in 2016.

Instead, a C.I.A. informant close to the Kremlin was a key source for that finding. Mr. Durham has been trying to learn more about any internal debate inside the C.I.A. over the conclusion, former intelligence officials said.

Mr. Brennan told lawmakers at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017 the N.S.A.’s confidence level was the “lone exception” to the intelligence agencies’ otherwise united front about Russia’s interference.

Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, said the C.I.A.’s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow’s intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.

“I don’t agree with the conclusion, particularly that it’s such a high level of confidence,” Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.

“I just think there should’ve been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and especially for those who didn’t also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of confidence,” he added.

Mr. Durham’s investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele’s allegations in the appendix of their assessment.

Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump’s allies have long asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence agency’s assessment.

Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment, while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix. Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Mr. Steele’s information “was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with the other agencies participating in drafting” the declassified intelligence assessment about Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele’s information with the team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.

Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper about the bureau’s efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be “credible on its face.”

But C.I.A. analysts still wanted to leave the dossier out of the assessment, as it was not vetted. Mr. Brennan’s allies have said he was among the officials who wanted to omit the dossier from the assessment.

Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele’s information.

Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele’s material in the appendix. After BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment about Russia’s election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his decision to publicly state that the intelligence community “has not made any judgment” about the document’s reliability.

Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.

Mr. Brennan told Congress that he had no firsthand knowledge of any attempts by the F.B.I. to vet the dossier. Mr. Clapper went further, testifying at a separate hearing that no evidence existed in the entire assessment to definitively say whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russian officials. He also said that the intelligence community “couldn’t corroborate the sourcing” of Mr. Steele’s dossier.

Mr. Brennan’s defenders said he always kept the dossier at arm’s length, arguing against using its findings about the Russian interference campaign in the assessment. The C.I.A. viewed it as “internet rumor,” an F.B.I. official told the inspector general.

It is not clear how much information the C.I.A. has provided investigators, and a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. The intelligence agencies are continuing to cooperate with Mr. Durham’s investigation, a person familiar with the inquiry said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Hmmmmmm.  I’d hate to think that the Right Honorable John Brennan would ever have done something inappropriate or illegal.

 

 

This is precisely what I would expect a competent investigator to be doing. Whether the investigation itself is merited is a completely different question.  Interestingly, unlike certain current executive branch officials with regard to congressional oversight, Mr. Brennan has gone on record already stating he would cooperate and speak to Durham as part of AG Barr's directed investigation of the investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“I feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community, and I feel very confident and comfortable with what I did, so I have no qualms whatsoever about talking with investigators who are going to be looking at this in a fair and appropriate manner,” Mr. Brennan said.

Take note dotard.  This is what innocent, or at least not obviously guilty, people sound like.

 

Quote

Christopher Steele. His research, funded by Democrats, has been ground zero for conservative allegations that the origins of the Russia investigation were tainted.

Not the full truth.

 

That said, good.  Investigate away.  If there was wrong doing, it will come out.  Doesn't change the fact that the dotard is a fucking criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not the full truth.

Steele was only brought on after the DNC took over funding of the Fusion work through Perkins Coie. 

 

I don't think Brennan is going to get caught up with an indictment. If you follow the IG's report conclusions, it was really the FBI, and specifically McCabe who were pushing the Dossier. Brennan and Clapper were leaking like a motherfucker though, and using the dossier and other information to shape an undermining narrative. It's what spooks fucking do. It's their bread and butter.   

 

Or as Strzok put it in Dec 2016...

Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking in to overdrive.

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, this has potential to get much much worse before it gets better. For people paying attention, they know the role that Rogers played in revealing the 702 abuses, as well as his actions post 2016 election, and how Brennan and Clapper responded. 

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/20/michael-rogers-nsa-trump-russia/

FORMER NSA DIRECTOR IS COOPERATING WITH PROBE OF TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

RETIRED ADM. MICHAEL ROGERS, former director of the National Security Agency, has been cooperating with the Justice Department’s probe into the origins of the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump presidential campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, according to four people familiar with Rogers’s participation.

Rogers has met the prosecutor leading the probe, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, on multiple occasions, according to two people familiar with Rogers’s cooperation. While the substance of those meetings is not clear, Rogers has cooperated voluntarily, several people with knowledge of the matter said.

Rogers, who retired in May 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.

Join Our Newsletter

Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.

I’m in

The inquiry has been a pillar of Attorney General William Barr’s tenure. He appointed Durham to lead the inquiry last spring, directing him to determine whether the FBI was justified in opening a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and alleged links between Russia and the Trump campaign, among other matters. What began as a broad review has turned into a criminal investigation, according to the New York Times. Barr has described the use of undercover FBI agents to investigate members of the campaign as “spying.”

Last week, a separate, nonpartisan review of the investigation by the Justice Department inspector general concluded that while the FBI and Justice Department committed serious errors in their applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, the investigation was opened properly and without political bias. Barr and Durham took the unusual step of publicly disagreeing with some of the inspector general’s conclusions, with Barr describing the FBI’s justification for the inquiry as “very flimsy.”

Rogers’s voluntary participation, which has not been previously reported, makes him the first former intelligence director known to have been interviewed for the probe.

“He’s been very cooperative,” one former intelligence officer who has knowledge of Rogers’s meetings with the Justice Department said.

Politico and NBC News have previously reported that Durham intends to interview both former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. It is unclear if that has happened. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment. Clapper could not be reached for comment.

The Times reported on Thursday that Durham is examining Brennan’s congressional testimony and communications with a focus on what the former CIA director may have told other officials about his views on the so-called Steele dossier, a set of unverified allegations about links between Russia, Trump, and his campaign compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Rogers is no stranger to the controversy surrounding the 2016 election. Shortly after Trump won the presidency, Rogers traveled to Trump Tower in New York, where he provided an unsolicited briefing to the then president-elect. Rogers informed Trump that the NSA knew that the Russians interfered in the election, according to three people familiar with the briefing. Despite delivering what Rogers told a confidant was “bad news,” Trump would keep Rogers on as NSA director while dismissing Brennan and Clapper.

In January 2017 just before Trump took office, the intelligence community released an unclassified assessment concluding that Russia interfered in the election. The assessment was based on a combination of intelligence collected and reviewed by the NSA, CIA, and FBI.

Russia’s initial purpose, the assessment found, was to undermine confidence in American democracy, but the effort ultimately focused on damaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign in an effort to help elect Trump. While all three intelligence agencies agreed on that aspect of the assessment, the CIA and FBI expressed “high confidence” that the Russian government sought to help Trump win “by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him,” while Rogers’s NSA had only “moderate confidence” in that finding.

Trump entered his presidency deeply suspicious of the U.S. intelligence community and skeptical of the assessment. He has spent much of his administration claiming that he is the victim of a “deep-state” coup, beginning with the counterintelligence investigation into his presidential campaign. He has downplayed the intelligence community’s conclusions about Russia’s responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee computer system and providing internal emails to WikiLeaks, which published them beginning in July 2016, instead affirming conspiracy theories that blame Ukraine for stealing the emails.

A year into the Trump administration, in February 2018, Rogers testified at a Senate hearing that the White House had given the NSA no orders or instructions for countering further Russian election meddling.

“President Putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there’s little price to pay and that therefore ‘I can continue this activity,’” Rogers said. “Clearly, what we have done is not enough.”

Four months later in Helsinki, Trump said that he confronted the Russian president about meddling in the election. But Vladimir Putin denied that his government was involved, and Trump said he believed him, directly contradicting Rogers and the other U.S. intelligence directors.

Rogers was concerned that his testimony before Congress drew the president’s ire, according to a former Trump White House official who spoke with Rogers earlier this year.

“He asked if the president was mad at him,” the former official said. “I told him, ‘No way, the president has always liked you.’”

The White House declined to comment.

Durham’s inquiry into the origins of the Russia probe has perpetuated the bitter partisan conflict fueled earlier by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Among Mueller’s key findings was that Russia’s military intelligence unit, the GRU, stole Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s emails, along with emails from the DNC, and delivered them to WikiLeaks. The Mueller investigation led to federal indictments or guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign with coordinating with the Russian government.

Yet the Mueller probe, the recent inspector general’s report, and now the Durham investigation have done little to bridge the yawning political divide between Trump and his supporters, who continue to see him as the victim of a politically motivated “witch hunt,” and career intelligence and national security officials, who view the Durham investigation as an effort to punish those who led U.S. efforts to investigate Russia’s election meddling. In May, Trump gave Barr the unprecedented authority to review and declassify intelligence related to the Russia investigation, further inflaming national security veterans.

Durham’s investigation has also sought information from foreign governments. This summer, Barr and Durham traveled to Italy to request information from Italian intelligence officials about Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who first told a Trump campaign adviser that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of stolen emails. That claim played a central role in the FBI’s decision to open an investigation into the Trump campaign. But in the conservative press and the right-wing social media ecosystem, Mifsud was portrayed as part of an Obama administration plot to entrap and frame Trump. The inspector general’s report concluded that there is no evidence that Mifsud had any affiliation with the FBI.

Barr’s visit to Italy coincided with Trump’s offer to trade congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine for that country’s help in pursuing the unsupported allegations that Ukraine hacked the DNC and framed Russia. Trump’s efforts to solicit “a favor” from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — that Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into purported Ukrainian-backed hacking and look into alleged corruption by Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joseph Biden on behalf of Biden’s son Hunter — led to Trump’s impeachment in the House of Representatives this week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And more. Fortunately, those that feel that nothing can be done while the Orange Menace still stands are rightly relegated to the ledge.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/surveillance-court-fisa.html

Surveillance Court Orders Review of Actions by Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer

Amid fallout from a scathing inspector general report, the court that oversees national security surveillance is also getting a new presiding judge.

WASHINGTON — A secretive court that oversees national security surveillance has taken a step toward addressing dysfunction in the system detailed in a recent inspector general report, ordering the Justice Department to identify all cases that an F.B.I. lawyer heavily criticized in the report has worked on, according to an order made public on Friday.

Separately, the court announced that its presiding judge, Rosemary M. Collyer, is stepping down nine weeks earlier than planned for health reasons. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of the Supreme Court has selected Judge James E. Boasberg to succeed her in that role in the new year. He will be the first judge appointed by a Democrat to lead the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court since 1995.

The developments underscored that the court has entered a period of turmoil and change after the report this month by the Justice Department inspector general that uncovered damning inaccuracies and omissions in applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.

The report has raised questions about the system by which the F.B.I. obtains wiretap orders and search warrants targeting suspected spies and terrorists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The Justice Department must convince a judge on the FISA court that the target is probably an agent of a foreign power, and it is supposed to disclose any exculpatory information — not just facts that make the target look suspicious.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP

But the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found that the F.B.I. cherry-picked and misstated the evidence about Mr. Page. Among the problems was that the law enforcement officials presented his long history of meeting with Russian intelligence officials but did not tell the FISA court that Mr. Page had sometimes told the C.I.A. about those meetings.

One of Mr. Horowitz’s most serious findings was that during the period when the Justice Department was preparing to seek its third renewal of the Page wiretap order in 2017, a lower-level F.B.I. lawyer assigned to assist the Russia investigation team, Kevin Clinesmith, misled a colleague by altering an email from the C.I.A. about its relationship with him.

The perfect gift for everyone on your list.

Gift subscriptions to The Times. Starting at $25.

Mr. Horowitz has referred his findings about Mr. Clinesmith, who has resigned from the F.B.I., to prosecutors. The Justice Department also informed the FISA court about the issue in classified filings in October and November, according to a newly declassified order. But the order, issued Dec. 5 and made public on Friday, indicated that the court wants more action.

Judge Collyer, as the presiding judge on the 11-member court, ordered the department to identify any other FISA applications that Mr. Clinesmith may have worked on. If there are any others, she said, the department or F.B.I. must explain what steps it would take to ensure every fact in them was accurate.

Judge Collyer also asked whether the Justice Department was referring the matter to Mr. Clinesmith’s bar association for potential disciplinary action, like losing his license. (He was not named in the inspector general report or in the newly declassified order, which is partly redacted, but people familiar with the Russia inquiry have identified him.)

Editors’ Picks

The Decade in Retirement: Wealthy Americans Moved Further Ahead

She Changed the Way We Eat. She Wants to Fix Our Democracy, Too.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, which had until Friday to respond, declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Clinesmith did not immediate respond to a request for comment.

Read the Inspector General’s Report on the Russia Investigation

The Justice Department’s inspector general released this report on the early stages of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

In another order this week, after Mr. Horowitz released his report, Judge Collyer rebuked the F.B.I. and demanded a proposal by Jan. 10 for an overhaul to ensure the accuracy of every court filing.

The two orders may end up being her last major actions as the court’s presiding judge. Although her tenure was set to end on March 7, when her term on the court would also end, she will step down at the end of this month and Judge Boasberg will take over in that role, the court said on Friday. Judge Collyer will serve as a regular FISA judge for the duration of her term.

In recent days, Judge Collyer has been drawn into the partisan fighting over the Russia investigation, as some Republicans and allies of President Trump have criticized her for waiting until Mr. Horowitz delivered his findings before intervening in the Page FISA dispute.

Judge Collyer’s decision to step down from her presiding position nine weeks early stems from health problems and is unrelated to the Page wiretap controversy, said David Sellers, a spokesman for the FISA court.

While the 10 regular FISA court judges serve only once every 11 weeks — hearing routine wiretap applications for a week at a time — the presiding judge has constant administrative duties and tends to handle major issues that arise, like responding to the fallout from the inspector general report.

Chief Justice Roberts, in his role as the chief administrator of the judicial branch, selects which serving federal judges will sit for staggered, seven-year terms on the surveillance court. He also decides which of its 11 members will serve as its presiding judge.

Judge Boasberg was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama in 2011, and became a FISA court judge in 2014. He will be the first appointee by a Democratic president to serve as presiding judge since Judge Joyce Hens Green, a Carter appointee, completed her tenure in that role nearly a quarter-century ago.

President George W. Bush appointed Judge Collyer to the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia in 2002. Chief Justice Roberts placed her on the FISA court in 2013, then elevated her to its presiding judge in 2016. That same year, she took senior status — semiretirement with reduced duties — from her regular judgeship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh man, this has potential to get much much worse before it gets better. For people paying attention, they know the role that Rogers played in revealing the 702 abuses, as well as his actions post 2016 election, and how Brennan and Clapper responded. 

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/20/michael-rogers-nsa-trump-russia/

FORMER NSA DIRECTOR IS COOPERATING WITH PROBE OF TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

 

 

Oh man. What dreams may come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...