It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Transcripts of Former Top FBI Lawyer Detail Pervasive Abnormalities in Trump Probe

page: 1
24

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   
So they(the washington establishment) wanted to get Trump.

New it was wrong but did it anyway.


Former top FBI attorney James Baker admitted to House lawmakers in October last year that the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and Russia was riddled with abnormalities.




Confronted with a damning summary of abnormalities, bias, and omissions, which transpired during the investigation, Baker told Congress that the investigation indeed was “highly unusual.”




Members of the House judiciary and oversight committees conducted the interviews in an unclassified setting, with agency counsel present to ensure that classified information didn’t enter into the unclassified setting. The transcripts of the interviews have not been publicly released, but were obtained for this article.

www.theepochtimes.com...

WOW!Lots more at the link but you get the jist.

Now couple that with the Bruce Orr testimony,



More important, Mr. Ohr told this team the information came from the Clinton camp and warned that it was likely biased, certainly unproven. “When I provided [the Steele information] to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information,” he testified. “I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware. These guys were hired by somebody relating to—who’s related to the Clinton campaign, and be aware.”

www.wsj.com...
Tons more at thais link as well

Like this,


Mr. Ohr testified that he sat down with dossier author Christopher Steele on July 30, 2016, and received salacious information the opposition researcher had compiled on Mr. Trump. Mr. Ohr immediately took that to the FBI’s then-Deputy Director Andy McCabe and lawyer Lisa Page. In August he took it to Peter Strzok, the bureau’s lead investigator. In the same month, Mr. Ohr believes, he briefed senior personnel in the Justice Department’s criminal division: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, lawyer Zainab Ahmad and fraud unit head Andrew Weissman. The last two now work for special counsel Robert Mueller.


And you will come to the same conclusion as The Wall Street Journal,



Everybody knew. Everybody of consequence at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department understood fully in the middle of 2016—as the FBI embarked on its counterintelligence probe of Donald Trump—that it was doing so based on disinformation provided by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. That’s the big revelation from the transcript of the testimony Justice Department official Bruce Ohr gave Congress in August. The transcripts haven’t been released, but parts were confirmed for me by congressional sources.


How anyone can hate Trump so much, that they can ignore these facts which have been known to a great many of us for quite some time is in and of itself, delusional




posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

I'll dive into this after work. Thanks for posting.

Epoch Times really has scooped the rest of the MSM with all these transcripts, if true.

How did they do that when all the Big Boys couldn't or wouldn't dig for these same Transcripts? As far as I know, no one has disputed them as false.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

Just confirmation of what rational people believed. Who will do anything about it and what will they do?



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

Excellent find!

I can not believe that people still defend the intel agencies in this. The double standards and corruption is so obvious, and yet people ignore or cheer for it because they dont like Trump.

Here is a nice tidbit from the article.


He argued with others, including then-FBI Director James Comey, about the issue all the way toward the end of the investigation, but was ultimately persuaded that Clinton should be exonerated.

“My original belief … after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials, I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged,” Baker told lawmakers.

As of October 2018, nearly two years after the Clinton probe concluded, Baker still believed that the conduct of the former secretary of state and her associates was “appalling” with regard to the handling of classified information.


www.theepochtimes.com...

But wait, didnt comey tell us no prosecutor at all would have charged Hillary? Yet here we have the FBI's top lawyer, who was consulting with Comey saying he thought she should be charged.

And then to stress the obvious that I have been saying for nearly two years now.


The House judiciary and oversight committees—which interviewed nearly two dozen witnesses—concluded in December last year that the DOJ under President Barack Obama treated Trump and Clinton unequally by affording Clinton and her associates extraordinary accommodations, while potentially abusing surveillance powers to investigate Trump’s associates.


Thats the understatement of the year.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

Fisa brings down the house.

Mueller needs to finish his investigation so Trump can declassify it all to the public make their our minds.

At least the ones who think for themselves.

The usual brainwashed leftists will keep believing the sheesh the MSM is trying to push.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   

During lawmaker questioning of Baker’s interactions with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, it was revealed that Baker was the subject of an ongoing criminal leak investigation by the DOJ. Baker admitted to having received parts of the Steele dossier from Corn. Baker testified that these sections were different than the ones already in the FBI’s possession.

"Mr. Baker: My recollection is that he had part of the dossier, that we had other parts already, and that we got still other parts from other people, and that — and nevertheless some of the parts that David Corn gave us were parts that we did not have from another source."

Baker said he either knew or assumed at the time that Corn had gotten the dossier from Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, whom Steele was working for.


So the FBI knew that Fusion and Steele was giving info to the press, after the specifically told them not to.

In fact, this would later be the impetus for firing Steele, because he discussed this info with the press.

However, now we know that Baker and the FBI knew in real time that the dossier, even parts the FBI hadnt recieved yet, were being leaked to the press, yet they still put the unverified dossier up to get a fisa warrant, relying on Steleles reputation as a subsitute for verification of the material within.

Yet they knew his reputation was that of being a liar who was telling the FBI he wouldnt talk to the press about this stuff, when in fact he was doing just that.

Further more, the article goes on to say that Baker admits he didnt know Ohr warned the FBI about steeles bias and that the info may be suspect, or that Ohrs wife worked for Fusion itself. I want to know that haad he known that info, would he have told comeey it was good enough for a Fisa warrant?



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Now read this carefully.


Baker testified that it was Michael Sussman, a partner at Perkins Coie, who shared with him information that detailed alleged communications between servers in Trump Tower and servers located in Russia at Alfa Bank, which were eventually debunked. Sussmann was also the lawyer who spearheaded the handling of the alleged hack of the DNC servers. Baker admitted that it was highly unusual to interact with an outside counsel.

" Mr. Jordan: [This] is the first time and to your recollection the only time an outside counsel had information and was wanting to make sure it got to the general counsel of the FBI, and it happened to deal with the Russia investigation.

Mr. Baker: I that that’s correct. Sitting here today, that’s the only one I can remember."

Baker had at least three meetings with Sussman—the first in person and the following two by phone. During the subsequent meetings, Baker discovered that Sussman was speaking to the media regarding the same information he shared with Baker.

Baker admitted during his testimony that he knew Sussman had professional involvement with the DNC.

Baker acknowledged that he soon discovered that Sussman was also speaking to The New York Times regarding that same information. The FBI later contacted The New York Times and asked them to hold off on publishing while they investigated the matter.

The information Sussman passed to Baker also appeared in the so-called Steele dossier in a memo dated Sept. 14, 2016. Notably, Sussman met with Baker five days later, Sept. 19, 2016. Baker had initially testified he believed the meeting took place sometime after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application on Carter Page was approved. Lawmakers later provided a corrected, earlier date.


So baker admits that is was the only time he can remember in the FBI that he worked with outside counsel.

And that counsel was Sussman, who worked for Hillarys hired law firm Perkins Coie and was connected to the DNC.

Whats the meeting about? The debunked story of the Russian server in Trump tower. So the FBI was taking garbage rumors from people connected to Hillary and working with them to investigate.

Imagine if this happened the other way around, and Trump connected lawyers got to spread rumors to the FBI to have the FBI investigate, while the Trump lawyer then contacts the New York times to smear Hillarys team as being investigated. People would have went nuts.

But wait, there more! What else did Hillarys pal Sussman take the lead on; the alleged hacking of the DNC server! So this guy was spectacularly wrong when it came to the "Russian" server in Trump tower, but we need to take his word ofn the hacked dnc server. Oh and remember, the DNC refused to allow the FBI to get access to the physical servers.

And then, after Baker knows that Sussman is connected to the DNC, he still is taking info with him about the steele dosssier BEFORE the FISA application.

SO once more we see Hillary connected people directly influencing the FBI in their spying on Trumps campaign.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon


How anyone can hate Trump so much, that they can ignore these facts which have been known to a great many of us for quite some time is in and of itself, delusional


Probably for the same reasons that so many hate Hillary so much, that they can ignore that she did nothing without Obama's knowledge, consent and perhaps even orders... which has been known to a great many of us for quite some time and is, in and of itself, delusional. Like this:

FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

Or this:

The Facts: Loretta Lynch's "Assurances" Hillary Investigation "Won't go too Far"

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy to see that people are waking up and understanding that Obama is at least as guilty as Hillary or any other critter. But I've still never heard anyone chant "Lock HIM up!"

And Obama still poses a far greater threat to us than Hillary does.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Aallanon

I'll dive into this after work. Thanks for posting.

Epoch Times really has scooped the rest of the MSM with all these transcripts, if true.

How did they do that when all the Big Boys couldn't or wouldn't dig for these same Transcripts? As far as I know, no one has disputed them as false.


One thing you will notice about the Epoch Times is that they do a pretty thorough job vetting what they do post. What you won't find is unverified, up-to-the-minute "Breaking news" like we saw yesterday re: Cohen. They didn't touch it. Mark my words, one day they will be the premier news source. Also, they absolutely have the inside scoop on China. They were the first news to break the SARS cover-up a decade ago.
edit on 19-1-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I star everyone i reply to, especially if i dont agree. I dont think Obama is innocent by any means, but Hillary has a well established history of being unscrupulous on her own accord. It wouldnt matter who was president at the time, and if it was not Obama then he wouldnt be involved at all.
edit on 19-1-2019 by drewlander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
No question she should have been charged as a former military member who has held various security clearances throughout my life, if I every handled classified information like she did I would be breaking rocks in Leavenworth. The hipocrosy is quite unbelievable. Although she and her husband has gotten away with much worse before during and after holding public office, it seems money and connections can get one out most all trouble...see Jeffery Epstein.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: Boadicea

I star everyone i reply to, especially if i dont agree. I dont think Obama is innocent by any means, but Hillary has a well established history of being unscrupulous on her own accord.


Of course. By all means, investigate, charge and prosecute as appropriate.

But at some point the reins of power changed hands and there is no good that can come of persecuting the one with the least power while turning a blind eye to the one with the most power. Especially since we have no reason to believe that Hillary was the only one doing dirty deeds at the orders of Obama.

And, as already noted, Obama is still a threat. He is still quite active (and influential and powerful) with his "Organizing for Action" pac which is --

...a nonprofit 501(c)4 organization and community organizing project that advocates for the agenda of former U.S. President Barack Obama.


Not the Democratic party, not the nation, not any altruistic or noble cause... but simply for Obama's "agenda."

A while back I believe Paul Sperry did a couple articles showing the connections of various rabble rousing groups back to OFA. But just like with Hillary, it's all been pretty much ignored.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
What the last administration has done or tried to do to the man the American people voted for and put in office is unconscionable.

They have thrown everything in the book at him with the FAKE NEWS Media's assistance, and still he has continued to do the People's work.

We WILL find out why they went to such extremes. Maybe there are still a few good men/women left in government that will come clean.

The international cabal they tried to set up using taxpayer-funded slush funds (Paris Accord for one?), government officials and politicians, intelligence agencies, and a certain well-known "Foundation", needs to be brought down.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

That much i agree with. Why can he not move outta DC like every other president for the last, oh... at least twice my lifetime? Hes deeply rooted into some shadiness.




top topics



 
24

log in

join