288

 

 

 

Pg. 61:

Q So there’s also been a fair amount of speculation on the political persuasion of individuals at the FBI. Do you have any reason to believe that the vast majority of FBI agents are Democrats or biased in favor of Democrats?

A I have no reason to believe that, no.

Gee that’s putting it mildly.

Q So when the FBI puts together a team of investigators, the consideration is never, Well, I need a couple of Republicans and a couple Democrats to balance it out? A No. Q Okay. Does the FBI ask about the political affiliations of its own agents? A No. Q In fact, it is explicitly forbidden for the FBI to ask about the political affiliations of its own agents; is that correct? A I believe that’s true, yes.

UPDATE: This testimony needs to go in Comey part?

Regarding the stunning admission that the FBI rebuffed Strozk’s call for an aggressive Russia investigation because others presumed Trump was going to lose anyway see Bill Priestap:

Q Stay on this text for a second. So you’re not aware of the insurance policy aspect of the text, but there’s also another aspect here, and that’s presumably Lisa Page discussing whether or not — presumably Trump — gets elected. Are you surprised that they would be discussing which candidate would be getting elected? A Yeah, I am. Q Would that be a proper consideration in whether to investigate someone, someone’s chances of election or not?

A Not in my opinion. Q So it wouldn’t be — if a candidate was unlikely to get elected, that wouldn’t be a reason not to investigate that candidate? A Correct. Q Nor would a candidate’s election lead to investigation? A Yes. Correct. Yes. Q So you are surprised that this was a discussion that took place in the deputy director’s office? A Yes. Yeah. Yes, I am surprised. Mr. Somers. Okay. BY MR. PARMITER:

 

At least it’s broached on pg. 63 that all these FBI leaders are actually GOPers

Pg 63:

Q So we know that James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller are all Republicans. Is there any reason to believe that James Comey’s political affiliation affected the way he investigated Secretary Clinton’s emails? A I had no reason to believe that.

But it’s never emphasized and the absurd idea that it’s a dominated by the DNC or something has been allowed to take hold in the MSM narrative-in so far as Trump and his co-conspirators continually make the claim and no one in the MSM corrects them and no one actually on Team Democrat attempts to push back against it in any sort of sustained, systematic way.

 

Still in a certain sense you have to give the GOP credit-they’re viiglance in purusing these badly predicated hearings on Emailgate have been so much greater than the Dem leaders’ vigilance in purusing the legitimately predicated Russiagate.

And there really was bias at the FBI in 2016 just the other way around but the Dems have simply let the matter drop.

Ok so rogue GOP agents at the FBI rigged an election against our own Presidential nominee who just happens to be the first female major party nominee. Who cares-people just want to hear about drug prices  and infrastructure declares Pelosi and Friends.

Democracy apparently isn’t a concern of actual voters-no just give them bread and circuses-or better yet Trump and Pelosi’s empty promises about doing a bipartisan deal to give them the alleged bread and circuses. Apparently the people can just eat all the ‘failed’ Dem House bills all ripped up in the Grim Reaper’s shredder.

That’s what the people demand-they don’t care all that much about their elections being stolen! They just want the Democrats to talk about working with Mitch McConnell and ‘President Trump’ and at most chiding the for rebuffing their pitiful entreaties yet again and send even more ‘failed’ messaging bills’

FN: In using the word ‘failed’ I’m using Pelosi’s own description of anything sent to the Senate that the Senate doesn’t pass. If the GOP doesn’t convict Trump after the House Dems impeach him Pelosi-misleadingly-calls this ‘failed’ so that means all these bills that her, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, and Hakeem Jeffries are so inordinately proud of are also failures. 

Yet failure is an option unless it’s about doing something meaningful  for accountability and precedent and impeaching the most impeachable ‘President’ in American history.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5790356/EW-Priestap-Interview-Transcript.pdf

Pgs. 99-100

 

 

 

Bruce Ohr transcript-Steele Dossier etc

 

 

 

 

 

AND you go Andy McCabe

 

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016c-72d2-d8c3-afee-f6f35ef10001

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6244862/8-6-19-Strzok-v-Barr-Complaint.pdf

Key point by Strozk:

21. There has been no assertion, nor could there be, that the political speech engaged in by Special Agent Strzok violated the Hatch Act. This speech was therefore protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

22. Even if the government could constitutionally punish Special Agent Strzok for the political speech at issue, it cannot practice viewpoint discrimination in deciding what political speech by government employees to allow and what political speech to punish. See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia, 515 US. 819, 829 (1995) (“When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination.”).

 

 

61. No later than early December 2017, several news outlets obtained a set of some of the text messages from one or more individuals within the Department of Justice. In subsequent e-mails to reporters, DOJ spokesperson Sarah Flores acknowledged that she was aware of this Case 1:19-cv-02367 Document 1 Filed 08/06/19 Page 21 of 27 22 6918943.1 leak and implied that she knew the identity of the news outlets that had obtained the text messages and how they obtained them

 

 

62. On December 12, 2017, DOJ willfully and intentionally disclosed to numerous news outlets approximately 375 text messages to, from, and about Special Agent Strzok. In a press release, DOJ called this act a “public release” of the messages. 63. Discovery will reveal the identity or identities of the individual(s) responsible for unlawfully disclosing these records. E-mails between DOJ employees, including Ms. Flores, indicate that she and others are aware of the individuals who authorized these disclosures, and that they were or are high-ranking officials within DOJ. These e-mails indicate that the Inspector General, Deputy Attorney General, and others within DOJ were apprised of the impending disclosure. Furthermore, several reporters cited unnamed DOJ sources as individuals with knowledge about the decision to disclose these records unlawfully.

 

DOJ Should Just Give Andrew McCabe What He Wants, But They Won’t

 

On Same Day Peter Strzok Sues for His Termination, Judicial Watch Releases Mostly Redacted List of FBI Leakers

 

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/06/peter-strzok-lawsuit-firing-trump-texts-1448615

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book