Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Its called investigating.

 

From Seth Abramson: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1116335760976822272.html :

So much disinformation is being spread about the Mueller investigation—in some cases with uncritical repetition by the media—that it's time for some clarifications before the conspiracy theories Trump and Barr are selling become gospel.

1/ In June 2016, American intelligence received intel from allied intelligence agencies—that is, we received information intended to safeguard U.S. national security from our longtime allies—indicating that Trump aides were having suspicious overseas conversations with Russians.
2/ When we learned CIA director Brennan had gotten such intel, the reports that came to us had plenty of euphemisms—that is, Western intel agencies were likely doing intercepts, so they had *some* sense of the content of such Trump-Russia conversations, not just their occurrence.
3/ Because it's illegal for a campaign to receive any financial or in-kind value from foreign nationals, and because any clandestine Trump-Russia meetup would therefore give the Kremlin blackmail material over the Trump campaign—the threat of revealing the meeting—a probe ensued.
4/ It was a counterintelligence probe, not a criminal probe, so it wasn't necessarily intended to produce criminal charges—though that can happen as a consequence of what starts as a counterintelligence probe—but to safeguard the United States from foreign threats or compromise.
5/ Separate from the intel received from Western intel agencies in June 2016, which intel apparently continued to be received into July 2016, U.S. intelligence knew that one of the men involved, Carter Page, had previously been suspected of being a Russian spy—with good reason.
6/ In a pre-2016 probe, Page was found to have procured info at the request of Kremlin spies, and then, after U.S. intel approached him and told him this, a) it was unclear whether he knew he'd been dealing with spies, but also b) he *continued calling himself a Kremlin adviser*.
7/ Another man U.S. intel began looking at, Paul Manafort, was known to have worked on Putin's behalf in Ukraine for many years, so here too there was Russia-related information already held on one of the individuals Western intel agencies were saying was having secret meetings.
8/ In July 2016, U.S. intelligence received *additional* intel from the Australians—which they'd been holding onto for 60 to 90 days—that George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that he'd been in contact with a Kremlin agent who said the Kremlin had stolen Clinton emails.
9/ *Of course* U.S. intelligence was going to look into these claims—it'd be malpractice not to. But what U.S. intelligence *also* did was make sure that the fact of its probe *did not leak*, so there would be no concern that U.S. intelligence was getting involved in an election.
10/ Again, *for the duration of the Trump campaign's existence*, the fact of a *federal counterintelligence probe* into certain members of that campaign *did not leak*. Indeed, not only did it *not* leak, the feds *lied to the NYT* in October 2016 by saying no such probe existed.
11/ There *should* have been a *massive* investigation into why U.S. intelligence *lied* to the New York Times in October 2016 about the existence of a probe of the Trump campaign, rather than simply saying it would neither confirm nor deny that. It *chose* to mislead Americans.
12/ Meanwhile, even as U.S. intelligence was lying to American media to protect Trump, we have *ample* evidence that rogue FBI agents in the New York field office were threatening to *illegally leak intel about the Clinton case* if FBI director Comey didn't agree to *reopen* it.
13/ So if you're counting at home, that's *two* systematic attempts to protect Trump and harm Clinton by federal entities *before* Election Day. Neither has ever been investigated, and needless to say Attorney General Barr has *no* interest in looking into either of those things.
14/ In the summer of 2016, federal law enforcement received *another* tranche of intelligence: in this case from the former Russia desk chief for MI6—an allied intelligence agency—who'd *repeatedly* worked with the FBI on past investigations and was considered a *trusted source*.
15/ That man's name was Christopher Steele. Steele went to someone he knew at the FBI from prior joint work, Bruce Ohr, and told him he had *raw intel* from sources he had developed in Russia when he was at MI6. *No one* told him to go to the FBI—he decided on doing so *himself*.
16/ Steele gave his raw intel to the FBI in the *very same spirit* of coordination between allied intelligence agencies that he had exhibited in *many* years at MI6 (note that Steele's reputation as a spy was *so* good that the MI6 tasked him with *training other British spies*).
17/ Aha! you might say. Surely *this* is the point at which the FBI does something to hurt Trump pre-election, which assault on democracy AG Barr is now upset about!

And the answer is...

...no! The FBI *also* buried the intel Steele gave them for the *entirety of the campaign*.
18/ Steele was mystified that the FBI was doing nothing with his intel—which he estimated to be 85% accurate, suggesting it was strong but still unprocessed—and so he chose, on his own, to get in touch with media. A turning point for Steele was U.S. intelligence lying to the NYT.
19/ So Steele believed his intel was *deliberately* being buried by US intelligence agencies—and his fears were *proven true* in the ten days before Election Day, when those agencies lied to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe rather than having no comment.
20/ At some point *after* Page had left the Trump campaign, and *without* leaking to anyone the existence of a counterintelligence investigation, the feds secured a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant on Page *partially* using the raw intel they had from Steele.
21/ Remember that the feds *also* had past information on Page and *also* had other information from allied intelligence agencies and *also* had information about Trump's National Security Advisory Committee talking to Kremlin agents (Papadopoulos) in *addition* to the raw intel.
22/ But more importantly, *it was just a damn warrant*—not a conviction. The FISA court almost *never* denies a warrant application, and the standard of proof required is essentially an elevated form of probable cause—a low standard—because a U.S. citizen is involved. That's key.
23/ In other words, federal law enforcement had *way* more than the evidence it needed to secure a surveillance warrant on the (post-Trump campaign, remember!) Carter Page. And yes, it transparently indicated to the FISA court the origin of Steele's work and his raw intelligence.
24/ So what the hell—you may ask—is Barr talking about in referencing "spying" on Trump's "campaign"? And why is he talking about *that*, not anti-Clinton leaks from the NYC FBI field office or anti-Clinton lies told to the NYT about the existence of a counterintelligence probe?
25/ So far, the *only* even *possible* event Barr could be referring to is a claim by George Papadopoulos—a *self-identified* "Kremlin intermediary" during the Trump campaign who was *secretly trying to set up a clandestine Trump-Putin summit*—involving a man named Stefan Halper.
26/ Halper, who has cooperated with the FBI in the past, allegedly met Papadopoulos in summer 2016 to try to learn about Papadopoulos' conversations with Kremlin agents—conversations that *definitely happened* and that *allied intelligence agencies* told U.S. intelligence about.
27/ So, *at worst*, while U.S. intelligence was carefully and studiously protecting the fact of a well-founded counterintelligence probe against certain Trump aides (not Trump) it had a cooperator talk to a Trump aide who was then acting—per its sources—as a Kremlin intermediary.
28/ In other words, U.S. intelligence was *doing its job*.

They *weren't* doing their job when they leaked details of the Clinton case; they *weren't* doing their job when they lied to the NYT; they *weren't* doing their job in burying Steele's intel—but they did their job here.
29/ So of *course*, what's the *one thing* Trump's handpicked AG wants to investigate? The thing US intelligence did *right* in the pre-election period.

This should distress all law-abiding Americans who love our democracy and our rule of law—because it's *chillingly* political.
30/ Meanwhile, Barr *also* undercut DOJ regs by opining on obstruction—a probe *Trump* initiated by his own conduct in 2017—when it wasn't his place to do so. And *now* he's going to distract attention from Mueller's findings with—it sure seems—an unwarranted new Special Counsel.
CONCLUSION/ When journalists know certain facts are wrong from prior reporting, they're *obligated* not to *amplify* the voices of those spreading disinformation—but rather, to stay focused on the *truth* and U.S. national security. Barr and Trump are playing media like a fiddle.
PS/ Keep in mind the Halper-Papadopoulos conversation—even if orchestrated by the FBI—would in no way whatsoever be spying, but rather a fairly conventional investigative method as part of a validly established counterintelligence operation.

 

another perspective from Kim Strassel in this morning's WSJ:

Barr Brings Accountability
Trump’s foes call it ‘stunning and scary.’ Here’s what they have to be scared about.
By
Kimberley A. Strassel
April 11, 2019 6:46 p.m. ET

The most inadvertently honest reaction to Attorney General William Barr’s congressional testimony this week came from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Mr. Barr had bluntly called out the Federal Bureau of Investigation for “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016. Mr. Clapper said that was both “stunning and scary.” Indeed.

No doubt a lot of former Obama administration and Hillary Clinton campaign officials, opposition guns for hire, and media members are stunned and scared that the Justice Department finally has a leader willing to address the FBI’s behavior in 2016. They worked very hard to make sure such an accounting never happened. Only in that context can we understand the frantic new Democratic-media campaign to tar the attorney general.

Mr. Barr told the Senate Wednesday that one question he wants answered is why nobody at the FBI briefed the Trump campaign about concerns that low-level aides might have had inappropriate contacts with Russians. That’s “normally” what happens, Mr. Barr said, and the Trump campaign had two obvious people to brief—Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, both former federal prosecutors.

It wasn’t only the Trump campaign that the FBI kept in the dark. The bureau routinely briefs Congress on sensitive counterintelligence operations. Yet former Director James Comey admits he deliberately hid his work from both the House and the Senate. And the FBI kept information from yet another overseer, the judicial branch, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee had paid for the dossier it presented as a basis for a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, a U.S. citizen.

Why the secrecy? Mr. Comey testified that the Trump probe was simply too sensitive for members of congressional intelligence committees to know about—an unbelievable statement given the heavy publicity he gave the investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s improper handling of classified information. Here’s a more plausible explanation: Mr. Comey and his crew have also testified that they were all convinced Mrs. Clinton would win the election. That would have meant that no politician other than the incoming Democratic president would have known the FBI had spied on the Trump team. Nor would the public. A Clinton presidency would have ensured no accountability.

Mr. Trump’s victory destroyed that scenario, and it became clear that the new Republican president would soon know that the former Democratic administration had surveilled his campaign on the basis of information from his rival. At that point two things happened. Neither was accidental, and both were aimed, again, at forestalling accountability.

First, Mr. Comey and other intelligence officials, including Mr. Clapper, engineered the public release of all the scandalous claims against Mr. Trump, to provide some cover. As liberal commentator Matt Taibbi notes in his new book, “Hate Inc.” Mr. Comey’s Jan. 6, 2017, briefing of the president-elect about the dossier was a classic Washington “trick.” It served as the “pretext” to get the details out, a “news hook” to allow the press to publish the dossier—with its salacious fictions about prostitutes and Moscow hotel rooms—and go wild.

Democrats used the furor in their successful push for a special counsel, which gave greater legitimacy to the FBI’s probe. The appointment of a special counsel also froze other oversight. Congress can’t have access to certain documents or ask witnesses certain questions, since that might interfere with the probe. The White House can’t demand answers, because that too would interfere. Mr. Trump’s adversaries got to hide behind Robert Mueller for nearly two years.

Second, Democrats mobilized against the other big threat, incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had the authority to conduct an internal review. Don’t forget, the dossier wasn’t delivered only to the FBI. Its ultimate owners were the Clinton campaign and the DNC. And one huge outstanding question is just how many Democrats pushing for Mr. Sessions’ recusal in early 2017 did so with full knowledge of the FBI-Clinton tie-up. Certainly no Republicans were aware, and thus they were clueless to the bigger consequences of the unnecessary Sessions recusal.

Namely, that no outsider would take a hard look at the FBI. The Russia question fell to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, an institutionalist who would go on to sign the final application for a surveillance warrant against Mr. Page. Again, no accountability. Meantime, wonder why Democrats tried so hard to mau-mau Mr. Barr into also recusing himself? The goal all along has been to deep-six any discovery until a Democrat returns to the White House.

Mr. Barr didn’t merely refuse to recuse; he’s made clear he plans to plumb the FBI’s actions thoroughly. That makes him Threat No. 1 to everyone who participated in these abuses, and it’s why the liberal media establishment is now disparaging his integrity. They are stunned and scared—that accountability has returned to the Justice Department.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Appeared in the April 12, 2019, print edition.

​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/barr-brings-accountability-11555022792

 

Let the panic begin!

 

Strassel nailed it!

 

strassel nailed what? Don't get the WSJ and don't follow her twitter since its mostly trumpy defense stuff...

 

I started to quote you on a different post yesterday and changed my mind. When I quoted @Os Trigonum this morning the post I started to quote you on was apparently still in the reply box. In other words I did not mean to quote you on this post. I apologize that I did not catch that your post was quoted also. I edited the post.

 

OK no worries...

 

I'd rather consider the opinion of Jennifer Rubin, a lifelong Conservative Republican

William Barr’s political stunt has backfired​

AG Wiiliam under-handed treatment of the Mueller Report tells the American public that he is just another Trump stooge, a la Devlin Nunes

Why would Barr behave in such an underhanded fashion?

We can only surmise from his 19-page memo sent to the Justice Department before his appointment that
either as a partisan defending President Donald Trump or as a lawyer wedded to an excessively broad definition of executive power Barr has never thought that the Mueller probe was legitimate.​

Barr’s personal exoneration was partisan showmanship in the extreme, a move that endeared him to his boss and the right wing, which both declared victory.

The victory was temporary, however. Most or all of the report will make its way to Congress. Barr and/or Mueller
will testify, and Mueller will describe how he compiled the report,

why he prepared the summaries and why he did not render a judgment on indictment.
​

Barr has spun away his credibility and will be accused (rightly) of overstepping his bounds, adopting a partisan tone and hiding critical information about Trump from the public.

The irony here is that Trump will not be indicted or removed from office. When Trump does leave office, however, another party might hold the White House, other prosecutors will seek access to the report and the latter might be the basis for criminal prosecution, which certainly can begin once Trump is no longer president. Even if the feds never charge Trump, that could leave considerable territory for New York state prosecutors to charge Trump under state law.

You see, simply because Trump and Barr want to wish away the Mueller report doesn’t mean it’s gone. To the contrary,

its release might prove even more debilitating to them both. The information it contains, along with any additional evidence prosecutors in the Southern District of New York uncover, will not vanish. The facts are the facts. Voters will render one verdict;
down the road state and federal prosecutors might seek others. Trump can run, but he cannot hide forever.​

Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post.




https://www.timesonline.com/opinion/20190408/jennifer-rubin-william-barrs-stunt-has-backfired

 

One of the cases Mueller referred. Interesting she complained about the prosecutors not recommending a specific sentence... didn't she ignore prosecutor's sentencing recommendations for manafort?

Lobbyist Sam Patten, Charged in Mueller Spinoff Case, Gets 3 Years Probation

https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...ts-3-years-probation/?slreturn=20190312105847

 

So we need 5 investigations into the “spying”....

“Accountability” overkill?

 

It is like watching the flat earthers celebrating a plate that has the earth stenciled on it.

Barr is about as political and dirty as they come - he is for corruption to the nth degree....Pardon em all.....he is a big part of what is wrong with the GOP right now.

DD

 

Remember this is how you drain the swamp.

 

This just in ... Trump is now saying that the investigation into his campaign ties with Russian operatives was ... a coup.

 

great read on the FBI head of counterintelligence travelling overseas in May 2016

FBI was circumventing all sorts of domestic spying laws by running spy operations against Trump overseas

https://www.realclearinvestigations..._to_significant_wrongdoing_beyond_spying.html

 

I think the redacted parts referred to a really cool haberdashery in London I also went to called Quiz. They had hats for all occasions...

 

Just for kicks I read this, and read it again, and again to try and understand WTF you are getting at here.

-The basis of this tinfoil hat theory is that "There must be something BAD in the redactions" so therefore... it is DEFINITELY ILLEGAL SPYING!!!
-An FBI official was in London in May of 2016 so that means.....
-Peter Stroyk texts about paperwork due the following Monday!!! Because FBI agents NEVER do reports, or paperwork.
-Sharpies????

Truly enlightening sh$% man. I think you are onto something. Let me know why you find out where the Loch Ness Monster is too while you are at it with this groundbreaking case solving.

 

Bill Preistap traveled to London to assist with informants and UK intel counterparts being used by the FBI to conduct spying on the Trump campaign

The FBI/DoJ tried to hide this fact through redactions, but missed a Strozk/Page text that confirmed Preistap was in London in May 2016

 

How many investigations do we need? We got several ongoing.... you think a max of 5 investigations should do the trick....

 

It’s hilarious.... this how been Trump’s MO....

Change the subject from the evidence of collusion and obstructionism to “spying”.

This has been the theme from the beginning..... remember all of Nunes “bombshells” that just ended in a flaccid manner....