First, re Devin Nunes' remarks regarding the need for a thorough probe of the overseas activities of both the CIA and the FBI:
The top Republican with the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes told SaraACarter.com there is insurmountable evidence of the FBI’s malfeasance regarding the bureau’s probe into President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, but what must be investigated is the FBI’s actions overseas into the campaign.
Those questions will also naturally involve the CIA and any relationship the clandestine agency had with the bureau during the Russia probe, Nunes said.
What has been revealed during the course of nearly three years of investigations by the Intelligence Committee and others, is that the FBI had informants spying on the campaign. The most damning information was that the FBI had specifically targeted volunteers with the Trump campaign: Carter Page, George Papadopolous, as well as others who traveled outside the United States. Once they were overseas, the FBI had continuing operations and received information from informants to build an investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia.
The "as well as others" is clearly a reference to Stephen Miller., and I don't understand why Carter fails to point this out. The attempted targeting of Miller is, to me, a highly significant detail. Miller was--and still is--very much a Trump insider. And he had not conceivable connection to Russia, yet he was being targeted at a very early stage. The appearance is that anyone associated with Trump who traveled abroad was fair game for FBI/CIA/MI6 targeting.
The details of what actually took place and when the investigation by the bureau actually began, however, remain murky. Nunes said there needs to be a thorough investigation into the role of the FBI and CIA regarding the Trump probe.
“There are so many unanswered questions about what happened in Cambridge, where numerous people were making strange unexplained attempts to contact Trump associates,” Nunes told SaraACarter.com. “We already know the FBI committed a lot of abuses in this investigation, and we want to discover whether more were being committed overseas.”
Nunes is referring to the University of Cambridge in London, ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar,’ where employees made successful attempts in contacting members with the Trump campaign in 2016, including Carter and Papadopolous.
“Well, as you know, we have jurisdiction over both FBI and CIA and what they do overseas,” Nunes told Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures. “We have lots of information about FBI people going overseas and doing things, we don’t really have any information from CIA.”
“So far, they’ve really come clean. I would say the only one who has questions to answer is John Brennan, because we now know that John Brennan briefed Harry Reid on the dossier in August 2016. At the same time he never briefed me or Paul Ryan who was the speaker of the House at the time.”
What Nunes appears to be saying here is that the FBI officials who have been interviewed about overseas activity have been forthcoming. That would include Bill Priestap but ... Peter Strzok? If Strzok is included among those who have "really come clean" that would be important. I'm skeptical at this point but it's possible. The reference to John Brennan never having briefed Nunes or Paul Ryan--in their capacity as members, at the time, of the Gang of Eight--is a bit unclear. Brennan has claimed that he briefed all eight members on the allegations against the Trump campaign and that all eight members received the same briefing. However, I have seen reports in which Nunes has stated that, while he did receive a briefing from Brennan, he has learned that the briefings he and Ryan received were not the same as those provided to others. They were significantly less detailed.
Carter moves on to Durham's investigation. Here, the significant content is the focus on the CIA and the expansive nature of Durham's probe:
Durham is also believed to be questioning senior CIA personnel, according to a recent New York Times report. According to The Times Durham’s inquiry is directly related to the Russia investigation and “focused partly on the intelligence agencies’ most explosive conclusion about the 2016 election: that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia intervened to benefit Donald J. Trump.”
More importantly, the inquiry shows the expansive nature of the Justice Department’s probe into the FBI and it’s handling of the case.
Durham’s inquiry reveals that the DOJ is investigating every aspect of the Russia Trump probe and the connection the FBI had with the [CIA].
“There is no possible way that Brennan didn’t know what was going on during the FBI’s investigation, particularly when agents were working with sources overseas in London and Italy,” the official said. “The agency would have been well aware of the issue, particularly because it involved a presidential candidate.”
Previous reports have stated that Gina Haspel, CIA Director, who was London Station Chief for the CIA at the relevant times of 2016, is among the senior officials being questioned. Among the others are senior analysts who helped compile the Intelligence Community Assessment which continues to drive the Russian meddling narrative.
There's much more, so follow the link.
John Solomon is reporting that Comey may escape prosecution for leaking his classified memos. The DOJ isn't sure they it could prove intent. It is stated that conservatives shouldn't fret because he has other legal exposure.ReplyDelete
Joe D said something similar on Lou Dobbs without naming names. Will Chamberlain thinks that DOJ should revisit the decision not to charge.
DOJ is reportedly concerned with the appearance of coming out the chute with a more minor offense. (Not my opinion, just paraphrasing John S.)
I say start the slow drip, drip, drip to Comey's pocketbook by bringing charges. I'm slightly unnerved but telling myself to trust Barr and Durham.
What I learn from this: Nunes has long known of evidence of malfeasance by the Obama crew, but has never received any evidence that anybody is doing anything serious about it. Nunes always appears frustrated, like he doesn't enjoy being the only one who seems to care about CIA/FBI activities. He says “There are so many unanswered questions” which means he hasn't received any decent answers.ReplyDelete
You would think Barr would want to keep Devin freaking Nunes up to speed on the investigation, assuming the investigation exists. But if the investigation doesn't actually exist, then it makes sense that Devin Nunes is, still, in 2019, frustrated about the events of 2016.
Bear in mind--these are two separate branches of government with separate concerns. I'm a huge fan of Nunes, but Barr is concerned with possible criminal prosecutions--not necessarily with keeping Devin freaking Nunes happy. Since we now know that Durham has interviewed Mifsud and Steele, I think we can be assured that the investigation exists and is progressing.Delete
Devin frickin Nunes is going to be the Director of CIA 2021-2025. I would want to make him my friend right now.Delete
Is he the brother of Devin freaking Nunes? :-)Delete
Yes, I was just reading that.ReplyDelete
One thing is clear to me amidst the murk: we have a lot more to learn about what 'coming clean' really means.ReplyDelete
Isn't that the truth? I assume Priestap has come clean, but I remain skeptical re Strzok. Maybe Pientka, too.Delete
And what's this about the CIA coming clean? Wouldn't that be a 'first ever'? Talk about an infinite onion...they don't even know what clean is...ReplyDelete
I do wonder about that. Nunes seems to be saying that they've worked their way up to Brennan. So, Durham has been interviewing Haspel--we know that. We'll have to wait for more. What he's saying here is a bit garbled, unclear.Delete