Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page admits the agency could NOT prove collusion between Trump and Russia before the appointment of Mueller as special counsel in bombshell testimony


Pitcher
 Share

Recommended Posts

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page admits the agency could NOT prove collusion between Trump and Russia before the appointment of Mueller as special counsel in bombshell testimony

  • Testimony from former FBI attorney Lisa Page revealed the agency had not proven collusion at the time of Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel
  • Page made the startling claim in a closed-door hearing with lawmakers
  • Fox News obtained a transcript of her deposition, which shows her saying investigators could not make a collusion charge in May 2017
  • That was the month Mueller was appointed to lead the investigation
  • President Trump and his Republican allies are likely to use this revelation to boost their argument the president is a victim of a witch hunt
  • The president has long and repeatedly argued there is no collusion and he is a victim of a witch hunt

Former FBI attorney Lisa Page, in a bombshell revelation, says the agency could not prove collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign before Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.

Page told a closed-door joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in mid-July that investigators could not make the charge, according to a transcript of her deposition reviewed by Fox News.

'I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn't answer the question,' Page said.

Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page walks to a closed-door meeting of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees in July
 
+5

Former FBI Lawyer Lisa Page walks to a closed-door meeting of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees in July

Page claims the FBI could not prove collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign before Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.

Page claims the FBI could not prove collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's presidential campaign before Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.

In May 2017, Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as special counsel overseeing an ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump and his Republican allies are likely to use this revelation to boost their argument the president is a victim of a witch hunt and the investigation has been tainted by politics. 

But her testimony refers to a point in the investigation from over a year ago and it's unclear where the probe stands now. 

Mueller has been tight-fisted with his look into Russia election tampering and has given no interviews. 

But, since his appointment, his team has secured cooperation and plea deals from Trump players former National Security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Manafort deputy Richard Gates and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

The president has long and repeatedly argued there is no collusion and he is a victim of a witch hunt.

He made the same case in a tweet Sunday morning.

'The illegal Mueller Witch Hunt continues in search of a crime. There was never Collusion with Russia, except by the Clinton campaign, so the 17 Angry Democrats are looking at anything they can find. Very unfair and BAD for the country. ALSO, not allowed under the LAW!,' Trump wrote.

In his charge that Russia colluded with Clinton, Trump was likely referring to the unverified dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele that alleged Russia has blackmail information on Trump, which he has denied. The dossier was paid for by a law firm that was doing work by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

As for his 17 angry Dems charge, of the 17 members of Mueller's team, 13 are registered Democrats, according to reports. Mueller himself is a Republican who was appointed by the Republican deputy attorney general.

Trump and his legal team have argued collusion is not a crime although legal experts disagree on the term collusion and what it refers to. 

The website Politifact called 'collusion' an 'imprecise term' and said the 'focus is on what the Trump campaign did and whether that was illegal, regardless whether the relevant statute contains the word 'collusion.''

 

Page made the revelation in response to a question from Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe , who wanted more information about a May 2017 text where Page and her then-lover FBI agent Peter Strzok discussed the merits of joining Mueller's team.

The House Judiciary and Oversight committees investigating the Justice Department's handling of the Russia investigation and the Hillarious Clinton email probes. 

'I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview,' Ratcliffe told Fox News when asked about the exchange. 'But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.'

The day after Mueller's appointment to the Russia probe on May 17, Strzok and Page discussed whether Strzok should join his team.

Their May 18, 2017, text was highlighted by Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his report about the handling of the Clinton email probe by the FBI and the Justice Department, in which he found no political motivation.

'Who gives a f*ck, one more A(ssistant) D(irector)...(versus) (a)n investigation leading to impeachment?' Strzok texted on May 18, according to the Inspector General's report. 

Strzok later writes: 'You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there.'

The transcript shows Ratcliffe read the text exchange nearly verbatim to Page, and asked her to explain it, specifically if Strzok believed 'the odds were nothing and that he had a concern that there was no big there there regarding any collusion.'

Loaded: 0%
Progres
The president has long and repeatedly argued there is no collusion and he is a victim of a witch hunt.

The president has long and repeatedly argued there is no collusion and he is a victim of a witch hunt.

President Trump has denied collusion on multiple occassions
 
+5

President Trump has denied collusion on multiple occassions

Lisa Page spent two days behind close doors in July with lawmakers investigating the Justice Department's handling of the Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton email probe
 
+5

Lisa Page spent two days behind close doors in July with lawmakers investigating the Justice Department's handling of the Russia investigation and Hillarious Clinton email probe

Page said: 'No, I don't think so. I think it's a reflection of us still not knowing...It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing, probably not nothing nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point. But in the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn't ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum.'

She noted: 'I'm not supposed to talk about the sufficiency of evidence, so that's why I am weighing my words carefully.'

Page continued, according to Fox News: 'Investigations are fluid, right? And so at various times, leads are promising and leads fade away. And so I can't -- I can't answer more his sentiment with respect to this particular text, but certainly at this point the case had been ongoing. We didn't have an answer. That's obvious. And I think we all sort of went back and forth about like what -- what the answer was really going to be.' 

Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, which led to Mueller's appointment as special counsel.

ROBERT MUELLER'S PROBE SO FAR: EIGHT CONVICTIONS - INCLUDING THREE TOP TRUMP AIDES, A JAILED ATTORNEY AND 25 RUSSIANS ACCUSED

4F24D1FB00000578-6067925-image-m-51_1534

GUILTY: MICHAEL FLYNN 

Pleaded guilty to making false statements in December 2017. Awaiting sentence

Flynn was President Trump's former National Security Advisor and Robert Mueller's most senior scalp to date. He previously served when he was a three star general as President Obama's director of the Defense Intelligence Agency but was fired. 

He admitted to lying to special counsel investigators about his conversations with a Russian ambassador in December 2016. He has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

4F494DCE00000578-6068591-image-m-4_15348

GUILTY: MICHAEL COHEN

Pleaded guilty to eight counts including fraud and two campaign finance violations in August 2018. Awaiting sentence

Cohen was Trump's longtime personal attorney, starting working for him and the Trump Organization in 2007. He is the longest-serving member of Trump's inner circle to be implicated by Mueller. Cohen professed unswerving devotion to Trump - and organized payments to silence two women who alleged they had sex with the-then candidate: porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal.He admitted that payments to both women were felony campaign finance violations - and admitted that he acted at the 'direction' of 'Candidate-1': Donald Trump.

He also admitted tax fraud by lying about his income from loans he made, money from  taxi medallions he owned, and other sources of income, at a cost to the Treasury of $1.3 million.

Campaign role: Paul Manafort chaired Trump's campaign for four months - which included the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in 2016, where he appeared on stage beside Trump who was preparing  to formally accept the Republican nomination
 

GUILTY: PAUL MANAFORT

Found guilty of eight charges of bank and tax fraud in August 2018. Pleaded guilty to two charges Awaiting sentence and second trial

Manafort worked for Trump's campaign from March 2016 and chaired it from June to August 2016, overseeing Trump being adopted as Republican candidate at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. He is the most senior campaign official to be implicated by Mueller. Manafort was one of Washington D.C.'s longest-term and most influential lobbyists but in 2015, his money dried up and the next year he turned to Trump for help, offering to be his campaign chairman for free - in the hope of making more money afterwards. But Mueller unwound his previous finances and discovered years of tax and bank fraud as he coined in cash from pro-Russia political parties and oligarchs in Ukraine.

Manafort pleaded not guilty to 18 charges of tax and bank fraud but was convicted of eight counts. The jury was deadlocked on the other 10 charges. A second trial on charges of failing to register as a foreign agent is due in September.  

4EE3AAEA00000578-6067925-image-m-54_1534

GUILTY: RICK GATES 

Pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States and making false statements in February 2018. Awaiting sentence

Gates was Manafort's former deputy at political consulting firm DMP International. He admitted to conspiring to defraud the U.S. government on financial activity, and to lying to investigators about a meeting Manafort had with a member of congress in 2013. As a result of his guilty plea and promise of cooperation, prosecutors vacated charges against Gates on bank fraud, bank fraud conspiracy, failure to disclose foreign bank accounts, filing false tax returns, helping prepare false tax filings, and falsely amending tax returns.

4F24D22100000578-6067925-image-m-57_1534

GUILTY: GEORGE PAPADOPOLOUS

Pleaded guilty to making false statements in October 2017. Awaiting sentence

Papadopoulos was a member of Donald Trump's campaign foreign policy advisory committee. He admitted to lying to special counsel investigators about his contacts with London professor Josef Mifsud and Ivan Timofeev, the director of a Russian government-funded think tank. 

He has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

4F24D21D00000578-6067925-image-m-60_1534

GUILTY: RICHARD PINEDO

Pleaded guilty to identity fraud in February 2018. Awaiting sentence

Pinedo is a 28-year-old computer specialist from Santa Paula, California. He admitted to selling bank account numbers to Russian nationals over the internet that he had obtained using stolen identities. 

He has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

4F24D21500000578-6068591-image-a-2_15344

GUILTY AND JAILED: ALEX VAN DER ZWAAN

Pleaded guilty to making false statements in February 2018. He served a 30-day prison sentence earlier this year and was deported to the Netherlands upon his release.

Van der Zwaan is a Dutch attorney for Skadden Arps who worked on a Ukrainian political analysis report for Paul Manafort in 2012. 

He admitted to lying to special counsel investigators about when he last spoke with Rick Gates and Konstantin Kilimnik.

4F923BA900000578-6068591-image-m-3_15360

GUILTY:  W. SAMUEL PATTEN

Pleaded guilty in August 2018 to failing to register as a lobbyist while doing work for a Ukrainian political party. Awaiting sentence.

Patten, a long-time D.C. lobbyist was a business partner of Paul Manafort. He pleaded guilty to admitting to arranging an illegal $50,000 donation to Trump's inauguration.

He arranged for an American 'straw donor' to pay $50,000 to the inaugural committee, knowing that it was actually for a Ukrainian businessman.

Neither the American or the Ukrainian have been named.   

4F24D21900000578-6067925-image-m-66_1534

CHARGED: KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK

Indicted for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. 

Kilimnik is a former employee of Manafort's political consulting firm and helped him with lobbying work in Ukraine. He is accused of witness tampering, after he allegedly contacted individuals who had worked with Manafort to remind them that Manafort only performed lobbying work for them outside of the U.S.

He has been linked to  Russian intelligence and is currently thought to be in Russia - effectively beyond the reach of extradition by Mueller's team.

INDICTED: THE RUSSIANS 

Twenty-five Russian nationals and three Russian entities have been indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States. 

Two of these Russian nationals were also indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 11 were indicted for conspiracy to launder money. Fifteen of them were also indicted for identity fraud. 

Vladimir Putin has ridiculed the charges. Russia effectively bars extradition of its nationals. The only prospect Mueller has of bringing any in front of a U.S. jury is if Interpol has their names on an international stop list - which is not made public - and they set foot in a territory which extradites to the U.S. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a Dual Judiciary.  Dems can never be indicted.  This story needs to be reported, it’s 100 times bigger than Watergate and it’s a direct thread to our country.  What the Dems, the FBI, and the DOJ did was cover up a crime by HRC, invent a phony Russian Collusion story to cloud an election, then after the election they used the fake dossier to get a Special Investigation into the Trump Campaign.

 

This is nothing short of a coup attempt and Americans should be outraged and demand action into how it happened.  There needs to be indictments of the perpetrators and the news media for their role in covering up the story.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to say one more thing about Washington DC and our politicians.  When you have career politicians who feel entitled, this is the kind of activity you get.  Self serving, arrogant politicians and their supporters who don’t want to lose power figure out a way to game the system.  You knew the fix was in when Bernie kept throwing softballs at HRC during their debates. 

 

I vote for TERM LIMITS on all politicians.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

We have a Dual Judiciary.  Dems can never be indicted.  This story needs to be reported, it’s 100 times bigger than Watergate and it’s a direct thread to our country.  What the Dems, the FBI, and the DOJ did was cover up a crime by HRC, invent a phony Russian Collusion story to cloud an election, then after the election they used the fake dossier to get a Special Investigation into the Trump Campaign.

 

This is nothing short of a coup attempt and Americans should be outraged and demand action into how it happened.  There needs to be indictments of the perpetrators and the news media for their role in covering up the story.  

I agree. Here are some terms that need to be used in the comming days in regards to whats happening to our president TRUMP.

No more mister nice guy. 

 

 
trea·son
[ˈtrēzən]
 
NOUN
  1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
    "they were convicted of treason"
    synonyms: treachery · lese-majesty · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · perfidy · perfidiousness · duplicity · infidelity · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · Punic faith
    • the action of betraying someone or something.
      "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
      synonyms: treachery · lese-majesty · disloyalty · betrayal · faithlessness · perfidy · perfidiousness · duplicity · infidelity · sedition · subversion · mutiny · rebellion · high treason · Punic faith
    • coup d'état

      [(kooh day-tah)]

      A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small groupof politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, andproclaims itself in power. Coup d'état is French for “stroke of the state” or “blow to the government.”

      The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
      Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. ––– Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
       
      REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6968October 24, 1990AN ACT PUNISHING THE CRIME OF COUP D'ETAT BYAMENDING ARTICLES 134, 135 AND 136 OFCHAPTER ONE, TITLE THREE OF ACT NUMBEREDTHIRTY-EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN,OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE,AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.I. FULL TEXTSection 1. The heading of Chapter One, Title Three of the Revised PenalCodeis hereby amended to read as follows: "REBELLION, COUP D'ÉTAT,SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY".chan robles virtual law librarySec. 2. Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to readas follows: "Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection — How committed. — "The crime ofrebellion or insurrection is committed by rising and taking arms against theGovernment for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Governmentor its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, ofany body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive orthe Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives."chanrobles virtual law librarySec. 3. Chapter One, Title Three of the Revised Penal Codeis herebyfurther amended by adding a new article as follows:"Art. 134-A. Coup D'ÉTAT. — How committed. — The crime of coup D'ÉTAT is aswift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth,directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, orany military camp or installation, communications networks, public utilities orother facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singlyor simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person orpersons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office oremployment, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose ofseizing or diminishing state power." Sec. 4. Article 135 of the Revised Penal Codeis hereby amended to readas follows: "Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup D'ÉTAT. — Any personwho promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection shall suffer thepenalty of reclusion perpetua.

      Reclusión perpetua

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        (Redirected from Reclusion perpetua)
       
      Jump to navigationJump to search
      Globe icon.
      The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

      Reclusión perpetua (Spanish, from Latinreclusio perpetua, meaning "permanent imprisonment") is a type of sentence of imprisonment in the PhilippinesArgentina, and several other countries.

      In the Philippines, it is one of two sentences, the other being life imprisonment, designed to replace the death penalty and is in legal parlance near-synonymous with life imprisonment.

      However, there are several important distinctions between the two terms:

      • Reclusión perpetua is prescribed on crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code, while life imprisonment is imposed on offenses punishable by Special Laws.
      • Reclusión perpetua carries the accessory penalty in which, as defined by Philippine Law, the prisoner is barred for life from holding political office. Life imprisonment does not carry this penalty.
      • Unlike life imprisonment, the length of a sentence for reclusión perpetua is fixed at 40 years and cannot be altered during sentencing.
      • Reclusión perpetua does not allow pardon or parole until after the first 30 years of the sentence have been served, and after 40 years without pardon or parole, the sentence expires. Life imprisonment does not have any definite extent or duration of imprisonment, and prisoners serving life imprisonment can have parole at any time.

       

Edited by jg1
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChuckFinley said:

I hope everyone is happy. Wasted time and money.  

I am waiting for an apology to mister TRUMP for the accusations and incriminating him in a Russian collution sceam. Now, let check out the people that perpatrated this against our president TRUMP. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never watch the big network nightly news because of their bias but I wanted to see if they would mention this story. It’s a huge story but all I heard was crickets.  I’m also not seeing it reported in any of the major news outlets like Reuters .   To me this is just more evidence of prejudice through omission.  Why is this part of the Russian Collusion Story not reported.  So there you go Barry, that’s why we watch Fox News.   They report the entire news.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pitcher said:

I never watch the big network nightly news because of their bias but I wanted to see if they would mention this story. It’s a huge story but all I heard was crickets.  I’m also not seeing it reported in any of the major news outlets like Reuters .   To me this is just more evidence of prejudice through omission.  Why is this part of the Russian Collusion Story not reported.  So there you go Barry, that’s why we watch Fox News.   They report the entire news.  

Fox is the only news channel I watch!!!🇺🇸👍

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devin Nunes: Shocking Number Of Americans Have "Drank The Russia Kool-Aid," Truly Believe GOP Is Controlled By Kremlin

 
 
Posted By Tim Hains 
On Date September 16, 2018

 

 

FBN's Maria Bartiromo interviews Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, about military posturing against China, trade deals, and the approaching climax of the Mueller Russian investigation. 

"There is a large number of Americans, Maria -- and I know it's probably not the people watching your show right now, but you would be shocked at the number of Americans who have drank the Russia Kool-Aid, and they actually believe that Donald Trump is under control of Vladimir Putin," Nunes said. "You're really dealing with many Americans who are living in an alternative universe."

NUNES: You are -- you are slowly starting to see this collapse in on them, even though the mainstream media is not covering this, because they seem so focused on drinking the Russian Kool-Aid on terms of what is -- who is getting indicted by the special counsel, and instead focus on, look, was there any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which the answer is no.

 



So, we have known this for a long time. Our committee really led this investigation. If you look at a lot of the facts that are now out, it's the facts that we found on the House Intelligence Committee.

So, we believe that the depositions that we took, I think nearly about 70 people, those need to be published. And they need to be published, I think, before the election. Published, I mean being put out for the American people to review, so that they can see the work that we did and they can see all of the people that were interviewed by us and their answers to those questions. 

I think full transparency is in order here. So I expect to make those available from our committee to the American public here in the next few weeks. 

Full transcript: 

 

MARIA BARTIROMO: Let's bring in House Intelligence Committee Chairman California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes from the World Ag Expo in Tulare, California.

And it is good to see you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much for joining us. 

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R), CALIFORNIA: Great to be back with you, Maria. Thank you. 

BARTIROMO: A lot to talk about with you.

Let me kick it off with China, because I know that your committee has been investigating China from a national security angle. Your response or take on what the president is trying to do here? 

NUNES: Well, I think, ultimately, we're going to win this trade war. I'm glad that NAFTA seems like it's on better footing now. We have made an agreement with Mexico. I believe the Canadians will come forward.

And it'll be good to get that solved. The fact that finally we have a president who is taking on China, this has long been needed. We have been running an investigation into -- from the House Intelligence Committee into Chinese activities around the globe.

We have talked about them on your show before. But what people need to really focus in on are a couple of items. One is that the Chinese are stealing us blind. So they are beginning to steal our intellectual property and they're moving it to China. 

In fact, I think it's very possible within just a few years, you will see the Silicon Valley and the Austin, Texas, and those places where it's kind of a hotbed of think tanks and people who really develop new technology, you could easily see that code be transferred over to China and you could see China become the new Silicon Valley.

So that's first and foremost. Secondly, you have economic subversion that they're doing to countries all over the globe, including what I think many people understand, many Western European countries, where they own major financial institutions, power grids, electric companies, ports.

They have loaned a lot of money to countries all over the globe. And just this past week, you saw that you have countries in Central America who have long supported Taiwan, the island of Taiwan. They actually pulled their support and switched from supporting Taiwan to China. 

We actually went and pulled out our ambassadors, I believe, in Panama and Honduras. So this is something that continues to move forward. The president has these tariffs that he's talking about putting on the table and implementing.

And I think, look, if the Chinese don't come to the table and, number one, stop stealing our intellectual property, number two, stop dumping products on the market, I don't think we have a choice, because if we really wait too long, our military is not going to be able to go up against the Chinese in parts of the globe. 

BARTIROMO: Wow.

I want to just take a look at how the Chinese are using their economic strength and putting it toward their military strength. We have got a map here of China's militarized islands. And I know this is something that your committee has been looking at, the fact that China is going into the sea and building islands, and saying that this is Chinese territory, and then building military sites there.

Tell us what they're doing in particular in the South China Sea. 

NUNES: Well, and all of that started under the Obama administration.

So the irony in all this -- and it's always good to go back and look at recent history, so that we get the facts on the table.

So, you have the Obama administration, who said, we're going to reset relationships with Russia. We're going to actually withdraw troops from Europe, because the Russia threat is no more, and we're going to pivot to Asia. 

Now, what happened? They completely botched Russia completely and now tried to blame it on the Trump administration. And at the same time, they have militarized -- I can't see your map, but I'm familiar with the map -- they have militarized, building these islands which are essentially stationary aircraft carriers, where they have complete, military control, command-and-control, of the entire South China Sea.

So it makes it very hard for the United States to keep those major trade waters open in the event of any type of conflict, because on any given day, you have two-thirds of the world's commerce transiting through that region. 

BARTIROMO: Yes. We want to keep up with you on this. I'm going to keep checking back with you in terms of how your investigation is going.

This is real important. And we wanted to make sure to point it out, because we talk a lot about trade as it results -- as it relates to China, but not as much about national security. And that's what you are focused on. 

Let me move on, Mr. Chairman, and that is -- and get your update on where you are in your investigation into the FBI, the DOJ, and its handling of the two investigations, Trump-Russia and the Hillarious Clinton investigation. 

There's been a call from your colleagues for the president to declassify documents related to the Trump-Russia investigation. You have been asking the president to do just that. 

You also have depositions of important interviews that you have done. Will you declassify all those interviews? 

NUNES: Yes, Maria, so the American people now are beginning to see the walls are beginning to close in on the corrupt officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI. 

Many of them have been fired. Many of them are on leave. Many of them have been demoted. But you are -- you are slowly starting to see this collapse in on them, even though the mainstream media is not covering this, because they seem so focused on drinking the Russian Kool-Aid on terms of what is -- who is getting indicted by the special counsel, and instead focus on, look, was there any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which the answer is no.

So, we have known this for a long time. Our committee really led this investigation. If you look at a lot of the facts that are now out, it's the facts that we found on the House Intelligence Committee.

So, we believe that the depositions that we took, I think nearly about 70 people, those need to be published. And they need to be published, I think, before the election. Published, I mean being put out for the American people to review, so that they can see the work that we did and they can see all of the people that were interviewed by us and their answers to those questions. 

I think full transparency is in order here. So I expect to make those available from our committee to the American public here in the next few weeks. 

BARTIROMO: So, let me just go back here. This is breaking news right now. You are going to declassify your depositions of some 70 individuals related to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? 

NUNES: Yes. So some of them are not even classified. Some of them are just held at the committee.

So, matter of fact, I think 70 or 80 percent of them are not classified. The ones that are classified, we will have to send to the department of the -- or the director of national intelligence to declassify, but we hope that that would only take a matter of days, and they don't do their normal foot-dragging, where they slow-roll and we don't get these before the election.

But just for the sake of full transparency, because there's so much that's out there that's misinformation or disinformation on the -- on this Russia-gate fiasco, that we need this information out before the election.

And that's why we have been asking the president of the United States to declassify many more documents as it relates to not only Bruce Ohr, but also with the Carter Page FISA. 

BARTIROMO: Will the president declassify those documents before the midterm elections? 

NUNES: Well, look, I think he doesn't have any choice. 

If -- the president talks a lot about how this Russia investigation has hampered his administration. And I totally agree with the president on that. And if the president wants the American people to really understand just how broad and invasive this investigation has been to many Americans, and how unfair it has been, he has no choice but to declassify.

And I will tell you, if -- as we continue to move forward here, it's in the best interests of our intelligence agencies to have full transparency on this, because you're -- you're really dealing with many Americans who are living in an alternative universe, who have drank this Russia Kool-Aid. 

There is a large -- there is a large number of Americans, Maria -- and I know it's probably not the people watching your show right now, but you would be shocked at the number of Americans who have drank the Russia Kool-Aid, and they actually believe that Donald Trump is under control of Vladimir Putin. 

BARTIROMO: Right. 

NUNES: They actually believe that House Republicans are somehow under the control of Vladimir Putin. 

BARTIROMO: Yes. 

NUNES: I mean, there's a -- I bet 10, 15, 20 percent of Americans believe this. 

BARTIROMO: It's incredible.

NUNES: And it's absolutely nuts. 

BARTIROMO: And not only that, but this has to do with a media leak strategy now, we understand. 

I have got to get your take on this, because they were pretty effective with their media leak strategy, if you're telling me that 20 percent of the American people actually believe it.

We are going to take a short break, Mr. Chairman, but I have got to get your take on these new texts that we just -- were revealed this past week, where we hear Peter Strzok say, well done, Page. You just planted two negative stories about Donald Trump and company. 

We will get to that. Stay with us. More with Devin Nunes when we come back. 

Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures. Let us know what you would like to hear from the chairman of Intel, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

Back in a moment. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

BARTIROMO: And we're back now with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes from Tulare.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask you to comment on what we learned this week, some of these texts that were revealed from Peter Strzok to his girlfriend, Lisa Page, about a media leak strategy.

So here is one, where Peter Strzok says to her: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you that I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."

Twelve days later, he says: "Article is out. Well done, Page."

Your reaction to this? 

NUNES: Yes. 

Well, and what you see is the mainstream media and even Strzok's attorneys have said, no, no, he actually wanted to get to the bottom of leaks. He was really worried about getting to the bottom making sure nobody was leaking. 

Look, that's not what was happening. What was happening here -- and this ought to scare American people -- it scares me to know that the FBI and DOJ would go out and leak fake news stories in many cases, plant them in many cases, and then pick up those fake news stories to use it as a pretext -- and that's the word that they use in their texts, in one of their text messages -- a pretext to go out and interview American citizens, knock on their door and say, look, we read these three news stories that we're not going to tell you we actually planted with the news, and we want to talk to you about these new stories.

So that's first. 

Second, don't forget that the Page -- the Carter Page FISA, it wasn't just that they used the Clinton dirt to -- as a basis to go out and get the FISA. They also used planted news stories to corroborate the -- the dossier in front of the court. So they went to the court and said, look, look at these news stories, Judge. They actually match this dossier, never telling the court that actually, no, those were planted news stories by the Clinton campaign and the FBI.

So these -- these people are really dirty. I hope that we continue to get all of this information out before the election, so that people know just how sick this Russia Kool-Aid that's been poured upon the American people, how bad it's really been. 

BARTIROMO: It's just been extraordinary to me how all of these agents were politicized. Here we are, the summer of 2016. It's a major presidential election, and all of this misconduct, not just from this cabal of people at the top of the FBI and the DOJ, but also perhaps the CIA.

And then we see John Brennan all over town trashing the president. 

Here is the Peter Strzok text on December 15, 2016, referring to the CIA, we believe: "We think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they're kicking into overdrive," says Peter Strzok to Lisa Page. 

Your thoughts on this? And is that the CIA, "our sisters"? 

NUNES: Well, it's hard to know from that -- from that text.

But what I -- I can tell you is that we -- we saw, I think, an unprecedented level of coordination between the Clinton campaign, their associates, like Fusion GPS and others, who had ties and tentacles into the FBI and other agencies, the Department of State, where they were able to generate fake news stories, and dozens and dozens, really.

BARTIROMO: Right. 

NUNES: If you go back, you can probably pick out about two to three dozen authors of -- reporters...

BARTIROMO: Incredible. Yes. 

NUNES: .... that actually were fed this directly, and then spread that out...

BARTIROMO: Right. 

NUNES: ... in order to use it as a basis for an investigation. 

BARTIROMO: We got to jump, Mr. Chairman.

But I know that if the House slips in November, you will no longer be the chairman. Perhaps your colleague on the left, Adam Schiff, may very well be. We won't hear another word about this story. 

We will see you soon, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much. 

NUNES: Thank you. 

BARTIROMO: Chairman Nunes joining us.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/16/devin_nunes_shocking_number_of_americans_have_drank_the_russia_kool-aid_truly_believe_gop_is_controlled_by_kremlin.html?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spotim_referrer=recirculation
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOP to release over 70 interviews House interviews in Russia probe, which includes members of the Trump campaign, FBI agents, and various intelligence officials

  • Devin Nunes said he plans to make the interviews public in the next few weeks
  • House Committees have interviewed over 70 people 
  • Democrats have been calling for months to make interviews public 
  • Nunes said he would push the director of national intelligence to declassify other interviews 

The House intelligence committee chairman said Sunday he plans to release the transcripts of dozens of private interviews conducted during its investigation into Russian election-meddling and would push the director of national intelligence to declassify others.

 

'I think full transparency is in order here, so I expect to make those (transcripts) available from our committee to the American public here in the next few weeks,' said Republican Congressman Devin Nunes months after the GOP colleague who led the investigation said such a release could have a 'chilling impact' on testimony in future inquiries.

He said the committee interviewed nearly 70 people, and he estimated that about 70 percent to 80 percent of those interviews are not classified. 'Those need to be published, and they need to be published, I think, before the election,' which is Nov. 6, Nunes told Fox News Channel's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 

Members of Trump's campaign were among those interviewed

Members of Trump's campaign were among those interviewed

Devin Nunes said he plans to make the interviews public in the next few weeks

Devin Nunes said he plans to make the interviews public in the next few weeks

 

Members of the Trump campaign, FBI officials, and various intelligence community officials from the Obama administration were all interviewed as part of the committee's investigation, according to the Daily Caller.

Nunes said he hoped it would take Dan Coats, the national intelligence director, only 'a matter of days' to act once Nunes made his request about the classified depositions, and 'they don't do their normal foot-dragging where they slow roll and we don't get these before the election.'

Making the transcripts available can only be done by committee vote. Committee Democrats have said they want the transcripts made public.

The committee already has released a handful of transcripts, but only in cases where the witness insisted on a public disclosure. GOP Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, who led the investigation, said in March, when the committee completed a draft of its final report that found no coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, that he decided against releasing the whole transcripts for fear it could hinder future probes.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the highest ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, called upon Nunes to schedule a meeting 'immediately' so members could vote on releasing the transcripts. The Schiff has favored complete disclosure so the public could make its own judgment about the witnesses.

 

'The American people deserve to see what we uncovered, the questions witnesses refused to answer,' Schiff said in a statement released Sunday.

That is the approach Nunes is taking, saying he wanted Americans to 'see the work that we did and they can see all the people that were interviewed by us and their answers to those questions.'

Nunes said 'there's so much that's out there that's misinformation or disinformation on this 'Russia-gate' fiasco that we need this information out before the election.'

That both Republicans and Democrats want the transcripts released underscores the partisan lens through which each side has viewed the investigation.

Republicans are likely to say that the content of the interviews proves there was no evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia; Democrats probably would say they prove there was evidence.

The Senate intelligence committee is still conducting its own investigation and has interviewed far more witnesses than the shorter House probe. The chairman, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, has said he won't release committee documents, so it is unclear whether any of those interviews will ever become public.

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6173891/GOP-push-release-House-interviews-Russia-investigation.html

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ChuckFinley said:

I hope everyone is happy. Wasted time and money.  

Gov as a whole doesn't give a rats arse about you and me....and have no problem spending OUR monies. In my opinion just like in the real world if one brings up a frivolous lawsuit...THEY should pay all costs associated with it!!!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article. Kind of dovetails with the conversation above.

 


An anniversary most meaningless


It's a mistake to rely on the Constitution. It no longer has any meaning and hasn't for years. The politicians and the courts have determined that the Constitution means what they say it means, not what it says and the Founders intended. 

Two hundred thirty-one years ago today, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution it had created in Philadelphia. It would be 10 more months before the first nine states (the necessary number for adoption) approved it. The country began to operate under it on March 4, 1789. It would only survive in force for about 73 years. Today, it survives in name only; and in that just barely so. 

The public has been trained to think in terms of what is legal and what is illegal under the Constitution, though most know little about what it says or what the Founders intended. In 2004, Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill (that included spending on many things that were unconstitutional) that created a Constitution Day remembrance on September 17. The amendment mandated (what a surprise) that all publicly-funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. 

Here's a Special Message From Our Friends
     Dangerous Words from a Dangerous Man 

In 1977, Lloyd Darland did such of good job of revealing the government's most secret and frightening scam that he was arrested and jailed for writing this book. 

It was quickly banished, but when I found an old copy, it was clear why his lost book had been suppressed. It will certainly shock you, and could anger you. Click Here to Read Chapter 1 Now...


The irony of imposing such a congressional mandate was doubtless lost on the congressweasels passing such a thing, given that there is nothing in the Constitution granting Congress that authority. And given what most Americans know about the Constitution today, I'm sure that irony is lost on them as well. 

It's also obvious that the public (non)education system has not been any more adept at teaching constitutional history than it has in teaching most everything else that is good and right and true. 

Today we have a system where the politicians and their elite bosses operate above the law and outside the law. For them, legal is what they say it is or is not; Constitution be damned. But the vast majority of Americans don't care as long as they get their share of crumbs from the federal treasury. 

The President, all 535 members of Congress and Supreme Court justices take oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. One has to wonder how many have ever read it. Those who claim to seem to find it "troubling," as communist Senator Diane Feinstein does, or said she did during Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation hearing: 

Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling. In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. However, to do so would so would not only ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build, but it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds.

In other words, Feinstein is "troubled" by the views on government power held by James Madison, James Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders. 

The Founders envisioned — or claimed to envision — a nation with a Federal government that had limited authority, weakened by its division into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. They believed that the weaker and more inefficient Federal government was the greater would be our liberty and freedom. 

The United States House of Representatives and Senate represent many things, excluding the American people. But these two bodies are now used by the elite establishment to keep up the aura of democracy and so-called representative government. 

Members of the House and Senate are manipulated puppets in the paid service of the establishment which owns and runs the U.S. government. The House of Representatives and the Senate have great value, as a matter of fact incalculable value, as symbols of liberty and representative government. But they are hollowed out and gutted symbols, a facade and a myth that serves to keep the American people hoodwinked and blinded to widespread deceptive political chicanery. 

Americans mistake the symbol of representative government for the thing symbolized. Representative government has evolved into privilege, prestige and wealth. While we slept they carved themselves out an ivory tower of untouchables by prostrating and selling their souls to the money power. The time is long gone when Americans could go to the polls and vote for representative government. The great tragedy is that they still believe that they can. 

The Founding Fathers absolutely saw our day and how representative government would be usurped by the money power. The concept of prohibition of privilege (nobility) in public office was written into the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. 

Members of Congress and the Senate have surreptitiously acquired the status of nobility and privilege because they have prostituted themselves to the system unequivocally. This proves so well that Congress and the Senate have evolved into nobility and privilege in substance and in fact without the title. 

The election process in America has become a disguise for corruption that attracts the corrupt. When men and women go to Washington, they quickly learn that they are paid by the Federal government and therefore they are in the hire of the Federal government. But their true bosses are the money power that can ensure whether they remain in the employ of the federal government or not. 

No allegiance to their constituents is necessary and, as a matter of fact, there is very little pretension. Nor is the any allegiance or pretense of allegiance to the Constitution. Today we have:
Wars with no declaration of war.
Laws created by executive order.
Laws established by alphabet soup agencies.
Laws created out of thin air by the courts.
We are ruled by a people who, by virtue of their ability to con people out of their money (political donations) and their sole achievement of winning a popularity contest (election) and who as government functionaries sitting virtually untouchable and unaccountable in the corridors of power, have taken it upon themselves the "authority" to decide:
What we can and cannot eat.
What we can and cannot take for our health.
What we can read.
What we can say.
Where we can and cannot say it.
How much we can earn.
How much they can take from what we earn.
Who gets how much of what they take that we earn.
How much and what we can own.
How and where we can and cannot invest what we earn.
How much of our money we can take out of the bank at one time.
How much of our own money we can carry at any one time.
How much of our money we can deposit at any one time.
How much food costs.
How much gas costs.
How much insurance costs.
What kind of insurance you can and cannot have.
What type of health care you can receive.
What health treatments you can receive.
What we can buy and sell.
Where we can buy and sell.
Where we can go.
What kind of light bulbs we can use.
What kind of toilets we can use.
How fast we can drive.
How efficient our cars, appliances and houses must be.
How safe our cars, appliances and houses must be.
What we can teach our children.
Where we cannot practice our faith.
Whom we must serve.
With whom we must share a bathroom.
What we can grow on our property.
What we can do with our property.
What we can build on our property and how it must be built.
What animals we can keep.
What we can and cannot use for self-defense.
What kind of ammunition we can purchase.
Who gets to buy and sell our information.
They believe — with no evidence to back it up and much evidence to the contrary — that by virtue of their ability to con people out of their money and win popularity contests, or because they have risen to positions of authority in the federal bureaucracy, that they are imminently more intelligent than us and better able to look out for us than we are for ourselves, though they rarely state this belief publicly. This despite the fact that among their ranks are pedophiles, adulterers, pornography addicts, sexual abusers, tax cheats, check kiters, drug abusers, extortioners, racketeers, money launderers, embezzlers, serial liars, perjurers, bribers and bribe takers. 

Who can honestly say we remain a nation of laws and not men? We are governed by an evil and licentious oligarchy. 

A prescient "Old Whig" warned us what was coming in AntiFederalist No. 46. Writing about the dangers of the so-called "necessary and proper" clause — which is rivaled only by the so-called "general welfare" clause as the nexus of all manner of unconstitutional corruption and tyranny — the Old Whig wrote: 

My object is to consider that undefined, unbounded and immense power which is comprised in the following clause — "And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States; or in any department or offices thereof." Under such a clause as this, can anything be said to be reserved and kept back from Congress? Can it be said that the Congress have no power but what is expressed? "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" — or, in other words, to make all such laws which the Congress shall think necessary and proper — for who shalt judge for the legislature what is necessary and proper? Who shall set themselves above the sovereign? What inferior legislature shall set itself above the supreme legislature? To me it appears that no other power on earth can dictate to them, or control them, unless by force; and force, either internal or external, is one of those calamities which every good man would wish his country at all times to be delivered from. This generation in America have seen enough of war, and its usual concomitants, to prevent all of us from wishing to see any more of it — all except those who make a trade of war. But to the question — without force what can restrain the Congress from making such laws as they please? What limits are there to their authority? I fear none at all. For surely it cannot be justly said that they have no power but what is expressly given to them, when by the very terms of their creation they are vested with the powers of making laws in all cases — necessary and proper; when from the nature of their power, they must necessarily be the judges what laws are necessary and proper.

And Jefferson warned us of the judicial "sappers and miners" who would place us under the "despotism of an oligarchy." 

In an early draft of his first inaugural address, George Washington warned that no "mound of parchmt can be formed so as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." 

Happy Constitution Day. It's a day as meaningless and insignificant as the document it's meant to memorialize. 

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Axios

 

STORIES

 

Shane SavitskyNov 28

 

The perks of being a member of Congress

 

The joint session of Congress during President Obama's 2016 State of the Union address. Photo: Susan Walsh / AP

 

Members of Congress are granted policies, benefits, and perks that grant them privileges denied in most other workplaces. In yesterday's lead item in Axios AM, Mike Allen touched on John Boehner's in-office smoking as an example — allowed, according to the N.Y. Times, thanks to Congress' supremacy over District of Columbia law.

 

Why it matters: With prior sexual misconduct on the Hill slowly coming to light, legislators are likely to face a reckoning from their constituents on the "old way" of doing things that allowed cultural rot and excess to be swept under the rug for so many years.

 

Show less

 

The pressure point: Taxpayer-paid settlements in sexual-harassment cases.

 

The perks:

 

Members get annual allowances (averaging $1.27 million in the House and $3.3 million in the Senate) to staff and manage their offices almost entirely as they see fit, as well as for travel and other expenses.The House has averaged 138 legislative days each year since 2001, and the Senate 162. The job requires long days, and members are often active in their districts when not in session, but how many jobs give their employees over 6 months to plan and schedule entirely as they see fit?While members of Congress are required to purchase insurance via an Affordable Care Act exchange, they receive a federal subsidy amounting to 72% of their premiums, per Snopes. (Democrats say it's a stand-in for the employer contribution most workers get.) They're also potentially eligible for lifetime health insurance p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 36.0px; text-indent: -36.0px; line-height: 18.0px; font: 14.0px Helvetica; color: #5a5858; -webkit-text-stroke: #5a5858; background-color: #ffffff} span.s1 {font-kerning: none} under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program upon retirement.Depending on age and length of service, members can receive a lifelong pension of 80% — which, given today's congressional salary of $174,000, equals out to $139,200 in annual taxpayer-funded retirement benefits, per Investopedia.Upon the death of a member of Congress in office, their family will receive a payout equal to a year's salary ($174,000), per Congressional Institute. The one-time death gratuity for families of military personnel killed in action is $100,000.Members of Congress have access to free, reserved parking spots at DC-area airports, a dedicated congressional call desk with major airlines and the ability to reserve seats on multiple flights but only pay for the flight boarded.Our nation's legislators get a slew of lifetime benefits even after leaving office, including a taxpayer-funded gym at the Capitol, access to the House and Senate floors, parking in House lots, and the ability to dine in the House and Senate dining rooms, per The Washington Post.

 

Think about it: Lifetime access to an exclusive circle means you're likely to remain in that circle, further removing former members of Congress from the experiences of everyday Americans.

 

Axios1 hour ago

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.