Judicial Watch and the Examiner are not credible and hence, incredible. Tell me, with all this treasure trove of evidence, why have we waited to long to go after these criminals? They sound so bad that they make Trump and co. look like Boy Scouts.
Farrell: How the FBI Ran an Illegal Counterintelligence Masquerade in Plot to Get Trump DECEMBER 20, 2018 In examining the cast of FBI and senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials fired, retired, resigned and under investigation since May 2017, the breathtaking scope of the FBI’s unprecedented criminal efforts to steer a presidential election and frame a newly elected president serves as Exhibit A for the organization’s disbandment. The “leadership” that willfully and corruptly ignored Hillary Clinton’s criminal mishandling of highly classified information had no problem faking a counterintelligence investigation to smear and destroy President Trump. A recitation of the FBI/DOJ Litany of Shame is called for: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, Ohr, Yates, Priestap, Rybicki, Kortan, Campbell, Turgal, Bower, Steinbach, Giacalone, Laufman, Carlin, McCord — there are more, and eventually we’ll learn their names. Some took unlawful action draped in the American flag and smarmy self-righteousness. Some were careerists craving a retirement paycheck and a strong resume, standing by and doing nothing — negligent or complicit with guilty knowledge The group dubbed the “Secret Society” by FBI lawyer Lisa Page in a text to self-anointed FBI “Super Agent” Peter Strzok had a clear goal: Stop Trump. But how to do that “legally”? How does one manufacture a phony Russia hoax and hang it around Trump’s neck when you’re constrained from going after his campaign, organization and staff? The FBI is specifically prohibited from penetrating and subverting U.S. organizations under the provisions of Executive Order 12333, Section 2.9: “No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the intelligence community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the attorney general.” That’s tough for the “secret society.” Could they — would they — rely on Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and have her office generate a legal finding memo? An actual, discoverable, legal record detailing and authorizing an operation against a presidential candidate? Too risky on a few levels. But there’s more to Section 2.9: “Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where: (a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or (b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.” That second portion of Section 2.9 was exploited by Strzok & Co to create the predicate for a foreign counterintelligence investigation overseas that would then be “imported” back into the United States — circumventing the prohibition on “Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States.” Using this technique, Strzok & Co wouldn’t be offensively targeting the Trump operation to subvert his election and presidency. The FBI would now be “reacting” to a foreign intelligence threat. Hence, we have the widely reported (FBI designed and orchestrated) events surrounding Carter Page, George Papadopolous, Stef Halper, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, et al. Super Agent Strzok even traveled to the United Kingdom (the safest “Outside the Continental United States” [OCONUS] operating environment for the FBI) to grease the skids for a counterintelligence “dangle” operation. The reader will recall Lisa Page’s December 2015 text message: “You get all our oconus lures approved? ,” to Strzok. Having personally run double-agent operations as a counterintelligence case officer, I’m not guessing at this language and intelligence tradecraft. Thrilled with the initiation of their foreign counterintelligence investigation implicating Trump “associates,” (and laundering the criminality of their end-run of “undisclosed participation”) the secret society could launch full-bore with an array of techniques and tradecraft. Keep in mind that the FBI/DOJ never gave Trump a “defensive security briefing” that is standard when FBI/DOJ comes upon a foreign counterintelligence threat to a U.S. organization or corporation. Never. Not coincidentally, the “Trump Dossier” appears on the scene — thanks to Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee funding, via a couple of cut-outs, to actual Russians (a crime actually worth investigating). Next come the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants, predicated on Hillary’s mercenary’s lies. Now we know the FBI went so far as to phony-up investigative reports (“302s”) in the related framing of LTG Mike Flynn. Is there anything the FBI/DOJ leadership wouldn’t do to stop Trump? Here’s the big picture: there are the crimes described above — and there are the crimes to facilitate and then cover-up the underlying activity. That’s where the FBI got lost. It’s gone. No sensible American believes in the organization anymore. The DOJ is right there with them. Compromised, arrogant, ruthless, vindictive, detached, self-righteous, hypersensitive to criticism and largely immune. A fish rots from the head down. Go back and read the FBI/DOJ Litany of Shame. Review Comey’s arrogant, smug, Flynn-interview statement: “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.” The answer is to create an investigative division within the U.S. Marshals Service and laterally transfer over vetted, honest FBI agents. Collapse the decayed wreck of the FBI within six months and hope the American public can once again believe in “Equal Justice Under the Law.” https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...intelligence-masquerade-in-plot-to-get-trump/
I wonder if maris thinks these links actually support his "view" or if he just forwards the emails he gets from his crackpot relatives
Let's face it, they're all out to get him. The thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence and all the eyewitness testimony against him is all fake made up by the deep state. The deep state is led by the mass news media, the FBI and the CIA. They are all in cahoots. Don't believe your lying eyes.
GOP letter reveals FBI divisions over Clinton case decision, conflicting claims on Rosenstein controversy By Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson | Fox News House Republicans are shuttering their long-running probes into the FBI and Justice Department’s actions during the 2016 campaign as they hand over the majority to Democrats on Thursday – but disclosed new findings on their way out that undercut the official narrative surrounding the bureau’s decision not to prosecute former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her team for mishandling classified information. The details were revealed in a letter Friday from outgoing Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., summarizing their findings and reiterating once more their call for a special counsel to be appointed to probe decisions made in the Clinton email and Russia probes – and the “disparate way these two investigations were seemingly conducted.” The incoming Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff of California, tweeted dismissively about the Republican letter last week, writing, "This is how the House Republican effort to undermine Mueller by ‘investigating the investigators’ ends. Not with a bang, but with a Friday, buried-in-the-holidays whimper, and one foot out the door." But, the letter to Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz included significant new details, specifically concerning 2016 statements from then-FBI Director James Comey. In July 2016, Comey took the unusual step of publicly recommending against criminal charges over Clinton's use of an unsecured personal server for government business, though the decision to pursue a criminal case ultimately rested with the Justice Department. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey told reporters. Later that month and again in September 2016, Comey testified the decision was "unanimous." However, Republican House investigators uncovered evidence to the contrary, saying a top FBI lawyer and others relayed that the bureau was divided over the Clinton case recommendation. "FBI General Counsel James Baker, however, initially did believe the [Clinton email] case could be made from an evidentiary standpoint and multiple witnesses testified to the Committees the FBI's decision not to recommend charges was not 'unanimous,'" they wrote. The seven-page letter revealed that Baker, the FBI's former top lawyer, was a critical witness on several aspects of the investigation. He also spoke to allegations that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed secretly recording the president and removing him from office two weeks after Comey was fired in May 2017, which Rosenstein adamantly has denied. The chairmen said Baker testified "there were discussions amongst senior FBI and DOJ officials about President Trump's fitness for office, invoking the 25th Amendment, and the prospect of wearing a recording or transmitting device during conversations with the President." After the allegations first surfaced, Fox News reported on Sept. 22, based on a source who was in the meeting, that Rosenstein's "wire" comments were viewed as "sarcastic." Rosenstein also released a statement saying, "I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false." Still, the letter said, "Baker relayed comments attributed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as relayed to him. ... There are questions DAG Rosenstein alone can answer and while the allegations are serious, his denial was forceful. The questions deserve to be asked and the DAG deserves his chance to respond." Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department responded to Fox News' requests for comment on the letter. Fox News first reported some of the Baker revelations in October, including the fact that then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe consulted Baker, who told House investigators he believed Rosenstein was serious. Transcripts from Comey's closed-door interviews in December, meanwhile, revealed his lawyer threatened to shut down the session after persistent questions from Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas over whether the former director mishandled classified information when he shared memos documenting conversations with Trump with Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman and lawyers David Kelley and Patrick Fitzgerald. Comey previously testified to a Senate committee that he leaked at least one memo to Richman to kick-start the special counsel investigation. Ratcliffe questioned who received the memos and whether they had appropriate security clearances, stating that "four of the seven" memos "have been identified either by you [Comey] or by the FBI as containing classified information." On multiple occasions, Comey declined to answer questions about his handling of the memos, stating Richman, Kelley and Fitzgerald now act as his attorneys. "I can't -- I'm not going to answer questions about my communications with my lawyers," he said. Comey confirmed that he "did not have written authorization from the FBI to share the February 14th memo, the unclassified memo" with Richman, but Comey would not provide more detail on what memos were shared with Kelley or Fitzgerald. At one point, Kelley threatened to shut down the questioning. "We're here to answer questions about decisions not made and made by DOJ and the FBI in connection with the Hillary Rodham Clinton investigation and the Russian investigation. This is talking about his firing. Can you explain the relevance of these questions? Because if this continues, we're just going to call it a day," Kelley said. After the session, Fox News asked Comey if there was a spill of classified information when he shared the memos. "I'm not going to talk about something like that," he responded. Comey did confirm to House investigators that Horowitz was investigating how Comey created and handled the memos, some of which included classified information. After the second Comey interview, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee characterized the testimony and GOP line of questioning as old news. "It was a total waste of time, we’re simply rehashing things that have been gone over in public many times before with regard to the FBI and DOJ’s conclusions with respect to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails," Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/go...-conflicting-claims-on-rosenstein-controversy
Judicial Watch Seeks to Question Top Obama-Clinton Officials on Clinton Email Issue, Seeks Depositions of Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes on Benghazi Talking Points Documents JANUARY 10, 2019 DOJ Colluded Directly with Clinton Email Witnesses to Limit Discovery (Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch announced today that it submitted a court-ordered discovery plan for the depositions of several top former government officials involved in the Clinton email scandal, including Obama administration senior officials Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap. Judicial Watch “intends to update the Court regarding the depositions of Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills at the conclusion of the 16-week discovery period, unless the Court believes such notice is not necessary.” The plan for discovery is the latest development in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks: Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency. The Judicial Watch discovery plan is response to a December 6, 2018, ruling by Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordering the State Department and Department of Justice to join Judicial Watch in submitting discovery in three distinct areas: Whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; B. Whether the State Department’s intent to settle the case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; C. Whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. In his ruling, Lamberth called Clinton’s use of the private email server “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” Judicial Watch seeks the depositions of former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and former White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes about the creation and dissemination of the infamous Benghazi talking points because: “No one other than these individuals know better who they were communicating with and where records might be located.” Judicial Watch also argues for “direct, unfiltered access to [additional] key witnesses with firsthand knowledge and the opportunity to ask follow-up questions” about the illicit Clinton email system. In its pursuit of answers as to whether former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA, Judicial Watch seeks to conduct the following depositions: Jacob Sullivan, Senior advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure. Clarence Finney (Deputy Director, Executive Secretariat Staff)” the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary who was responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Clinton and other State Department officials.” Finney is also among the State Department officials in the emails discussing the processing of the CREW FOIA request and other requests concerning the former Secretary’s email account. Jonathon Wasser, who worked for Finney and who actually conducted searches for records in response to FOIA requests …” FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence E.W. Priestap, “who supervised the Clinton email investigation.” Priestap has not explained “the nature or extent of the FBI’s efforts, such as who the FBI attempted to contact, who the FBI actually talked to, who the FBI requested records from, who actually provided records, and whether the FBI believes those that they requested records from actually returned all of the requested records.” Justin Cooper (employee of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation). Cooper created and managed the clintonemail.com server. His testimony to Congress also appears to contradict portions of testimony provided by former Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Eric Boswell (Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security). On March 6, 2009, Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to Cheryl Mills that he “cannot stress too strongly … that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, Secretary Clinton approached Boswell and mentioned she had read the IM and that she “got it.” Heather Samuelson (Senior Advisor & White House Liaison). Until her tenure at the State Department ended in March 2013, Samuelson was tasked with tracking the FOIA request served by CREW. Samuelson subsequently served as one of Secretary Clinton’s personal attorneys and, in 2014, reviewed the clintonemail.com account to identify federal records. The records returned by Clinton in December 2014 were records identified by Samuelson. Judicial Watch argues that, “as the Court has already recognized, understanding the context of the preparation and dissemination of the [Benghazi] talking points is central” to the Clinton email scandal. For instance, did the State Department know that Clinton “deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?” Was the State Department aware that “Clinton sent or received top-secret information through her private email?” Incredibly, Justice Department attorneys admit in a filing opposing Judicial Watch’s limited discovery that “Counsel for State contacted the counsel of some third parties that Plaintiff originally included in its draft discovery proposal to obtain their client’s position on being deposed.” This collusion occurred despite criticism from the Court that the DOJ engaged in “chicanery” to cover up misconduct and that career employees in the State and Justice Departments may have “colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.” Judicial Watch countered that “[t]he government’s proposal, which is really nothing more than an opposition to [Judicial Watch’s] plan, demonstrates that it continues to reject any impropriety on its part and that it seeks to block any meaningful inquiry into its ‘outrageous misconduct.’” “President Trump, frankly, should demand to know why the State and Justice Department are colluding with Clinton allies and trying to protect Hillary Clinton and themselves from court-ordered questions on the Clinton email scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “But a federal court wants answers – and Judicial Watch discovery plan is a key step to uncovering whether and how Hillary Clinton email misconduct stymied FOIA.” This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...-rhodes-on-benghazi-talking-points-documents/
Do you promise to wake me when some indictments come down? You forgot to wake me the last time there were indictments which I believe was during the Watergate hearings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...rimes#2009–2017_(Barack_Obama_(D)_presidency) 2009–2017 (Barack Obama (D) presidency) Executive branch General David Petraeus (R)[2] Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000 for providing classified information to Lieutenant Colonel Paula Broadwell. (2015)[3] Legislative branch Steve Stockman (R-TX) was convicted of fraud. (2018)[4] Anthony Weiner (D-NY)[5] was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was made to sign the sexual offenders register. (2017)[6] Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges. (2017)[7][8] Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges. (2016)[9] Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for illegally structuring bank transactions related to payment of $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.[10] (2016) Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to eight months in prison. (2015)[11][12] Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)[13][14][15] Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)[16] Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two-and-one-half years' imprisonment. (2013)[17] Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)[18][19] Judicial branch Mark E. Fuller (R) Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, was found guilty of domestic violence and sentenced to 24 weeks of family and domestic training and forced to resign his position. (2015)[20][21][22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...rimes#2009–2017_(Barack_Obama_(D)_presidency)
I'm looking and looking for some sort of connection to the thread you responded to but goose egg which I intended to be about Benghazi and Obama Administration officials. Okay, you got me on Petraeus, a Republican, convicted of sharing information with a United States Army Colonel writing for some sort of publication, as I seem to recall. All you Legislative gibberish had absolutely nothing to do with my post that you were supposed to be responding to. Did I miss something?
Newt Gingrich: Reported FBI probe of Trump was led by anti-Trump fanatics who betrayed Constitution By Newt Gingrich | Fox News New York Times: FBI opened counterintelligence probe on Trump to investigate potential of him working with Russia The extraordinary story published Friday night in The New York Times headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia” tells us how deeply sick the Washington establishment has become. A group of bureaucrats – elected by no one – sat in a room and decided they would investigate the new president of the United States for possible treason. Let me repeat: treason. This is, after all, the implication of this investigation. This group of bureaucrats reports to no one in elected authority. In a Justice Department where employees gave 97 percent of their presidential campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton, the hostility toward – and fear of – newly elected President Trump was deep. The senior members of the Justice Department (all promoted under the Obama administration) were clearly prepared to go all-out to repudiate the verdict of the American people in the 2016 election. Further, these were Justice Department bureaucrats who had ignored the Clinton Foundation scandals, minimized the investigation into the Clinton email and Internet scandal, and ignored former President Clinton collecting money from Russians overseas while his wife was secretary of state. Suddenly, these hitherto passive, dispassionate, and tolerant “law enforcement” bureaucrats were galvanized into investigating a president for possible treason. When they made this decision, who did they share it with? Obviously, they could not go to President Trump, since he was the target of their investigation. In an orderly world, they might have gone to Vice President Mike Pence and briefed him. Pence, after all, was a member of the U.S. House and governor of Indiana before he was vice president. There is no taint of any scandal involving anything Pence has ever done. If these Justice Department anti-Trump fanatics were afraid to go to the White House, they could have briefed the leaders of the Judiciary and the Intelligence committees in the House and Senate. At that point they would have had some potential reality check. As President Trump’s former attorney John Dowd said Saturday: “The (New York) Times story is an unwitting disclosure and verification of the utter corruption of their oaths by (fired FBI Director James) Comey and his colleagues to undermine the free election of the President of the United States. It was apparently done under the supervision of the Deputy Attorney General, who was reportedly ready to wear a wire to ensnare President Trump. This is the stuff of banana republics and dictatorships. This despicable, unlawful, official conduct undermines our entire federal criminal justice system which protects our liberty as a free people.” This rogue investigation eventually mutated into the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that has ruined lives, kept Americans in solitary confinement, and coerced confessions through threats of life-destroying and financially bankrupting prosecutions. President Trump was not betraying the Constitution. There is no evidence he ever considered betraying his country for the Russians. It is the Justice Department bureaucrats who have been betraying the Constitution. Leaking this report to The New York Times rather than submitting it to the Congress is just one more example of the willingness of Justice Department officials to violate the rules and undermine the rule of law in favor of the rule of power. It also lays bare their alliance with the liberal media to undermine and, if possible, destroy the duly elected president of the United States. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/new...anti-trump-fanatics-who-betrayed-constitution
Another Deep State traitor exposed. Former top FBI lawyer James Baker subject of criminal media leak probe, transcript reveals By Catherine Herridge | Fox News Rep. John Ratcliffe confirms his questions to former FBI general counsel James Baker uncovered the claims first reported by the New York Times; Catherine Herridge has the details. The former top lawyer at the FBI has been under federal investigation for leaking to the media, a letter from House Republicans revealed Tuesday. The letter from GOP Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows cited the transcript of a congressional interview with former General Counsel James Baker and his lawyer last fall, where the probe conducted by seasoned U.S. Attorney John Durham was confirmed. “You may or may not know, [Baker has] been the subject of a leak investigation … a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department,” lawyer Daniel Levin told lawmakers, as he pushed back on questions about his client’s conversations with reporters. Jordan and Meadows’ letter was sent to Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, and requested additional information about the probe later this month. "As we continue our oversight and investigative work, we felt it prudent to write to you seeking an update. Without being apprised of the contours of your leak investigation and Baker’s role, we run the risk of inadvertently interfering with your prosecutorial plans," they wrote. James A. Baker, former general counsel for the FBI, was revealed to be the subject of a leak probe. (Michigan Law) The transcript of the closed-door interview and the letter do not include details explaining why the investigation is being led out of the Connecticut office. The status of the investigation is not publicly known. But the disclosure marks the latest confirmation of a leak investigation involving FBI figures who have since left the bureau. Last year, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe saw his leak case referred to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. McCabe was fired for lying to federal investigators about his role in a media leak regarding the Clinton Foundation on the eve of the 2016 presidential election. The letter from the GOP lawmakers cited other concerns that arose as part of their own investigation when Republicans controlled the House: "The Committees learned that in some instances, high-ranking DOJ and FBI officials, including the FBI General Counsel James Baker and DOJ Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, took the self-described ‘unusual’ step of inserting themselves into the evidentiary chain of custody." Documents reviewed by Fox News indicate that Ohr became the back-channel between Christopher Steele, author of the controversial and unverified anti-Trump “dossier,” and the FBI after he was fired by the bureau for lying about his contact with the media. According to a January 2018 memo by House Intelligence Committee Republicans on government surveillance practices, "Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an authorized disclosure of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, Mother Jones article.” According to the DOJ website, Durham is a seasoned prosecutor who has been tapped by Republicans and Democrats to handle high-profile, national controversies. Durham has held various positions in the District of Connecticut for 35 years, prosecuting organized and violent crime, as well as public corruption. From 2008 to 2012, he also served as the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he investigated the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes of senior Al Qaeda operatives and, prior to that, he reviewed alleged criminal wrongdoing by FBI personnel in Boston connected to the Whitey Bulger case. Fox News is reaching out to FBI and Baker, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s office in Connecticut, for comment on the new letter. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...f-federal-media-leak-probe-transcript-reveals
