Russia Gate! Spy Gate! Oh me! Oh my!

Grassley presses Justice Dept. on Russian ties to firm behind Trump dossier

“The issue is of particular concern to the Committee given that when Fusion GPS reportedly was acting as an unregistered agent of Russian interests, it appears to have been simultaneously overseeing the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier of allegations of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Grassley wrote in the letter.

ETA: Grassley's on a roll!

Grassley began his investigation after the Washington Post reported on February 28 that the FBI, "a few weeks before the election," agreed to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to investigate Trump. Prior to that, supporters of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign had paid Steele to gather intelligence on Clinton's Republican rival. In the end, the FBI did not pay Steele, the Post reported, after the dossier "became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials." It is not clear whether Steele worked under agreement with the FBI for any period of time before the payment deal fell through.

"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends," Grassley wrote in a letter to Comey dated March 28.

But the most noteworthy thing about Grassley's letter is its focus on McCabe. Grassley noted that McCabe is already under investigation by the FBI's inspector general for playing a top role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation even though McCabe's wife accepted nearly $700,000 in political donations arranged by a close Clinton friend, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, for her run for state senate in Virginia.

Byron York: Senate committee targets FBI No. 2 in Trump dossier probe

Backpedal much, Mr. Schiff??? Given that you have personal knowledge of the existing "evidence," this says a lot... and probably more than you ever wanted to say.

Dem Rep Schiff: Nothing Definitive on Trump-Russia Collusion

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said... “I don’t think we can say anything definitively at this point,” Schiff said. “We are still at the very early stages of the investigation. The only thing I can say is that it would be irresponsible for us not to get to the bottom of this. We really need to find out exactly what the Russians did. Because one of the most important conclusions that the intelligence community reached is that they are going to do this again to the United States. They are doing it already in Europe. So we can say conclusively this is something that needs to be thoroughly investigated but it’s way premature to be reaching conclusions.”

I'm trying to wrap my head around this... so it's premature to come to any conclusions about Trump-Russia collusion... or any of it... except that "they" will do it again and are already doing it again... so they don't know what they're doing but they know they're doing it... again. Um... okay.

Now let's talk about where that "evidence" of alleged Trump-Russia collusion originated, and what other crimes were committed in the process... Because I know you know all about that too. Were you one of those critters on "the Hill" that Farkas and her buddies illegally disseminated classified intelligence to???

Look, everyone in the Trump administration has ties to big-money Russian criminals, I mean citizens, so it's indisputable that the administration is at the very least a giant conflict of interest that can't be objective in leading the country.

I don't understand how anyone can honestly deny that there is a serious problem here.

You can only dishonestly deny it.

originally posted by: CB328
Look, everyone in the Trump administration has ties to big-money Russian criminals, I mean citizens,,,

I don't pretend to know the private and/or professional associations of everyone in the Trump administration, but I do know that Trump and his people aren't the only ones. Their associations are no more or less than those in the Obama administration... or those who would have been in a Hillary administration...

Nor will I play the big bad Russian boogeyman game. I've been hearing the Russian fearmongering for almost 60 years... and in the last 16 years, I've watched my own country commit far greater atrocities than Russia.

...so it's indisputable that the administration is at the very least a giant conflict of interest that can't be objective in leading the country.

Ooooh... indisputable??? Absolutely no room for any doubt or disagreement, huh? Absolutely impossible that anyone could have associations with Russia that actually complement -- not conflict -- with the nation's interests? Really?

And you know this because... well... Because you know all??? LOL!!!

I don't understand how anyone can honestly deny that there is a serious problem here.

You can only dishonestly deny it.

Indeed. Although even Adam Schiff -- one of the administration's most critical opponents and one of the very few critters with access to the "evidence" against Trump -- says differently. Hmmmm....

Of course, the other side of the coin is how that "evidence" was obtained, and what was done with that "evidence" after it was obtained. And I don't understand how anyone can honestly deny that there is a VERY serious problem here... One can only dishonestly deny it.

Trump and his buddies are trying to use the White house to make billions of dollars. They are criminals and traitors and anyone who supports them is either a traitor or an idiot. Obama has nothing even remotely close to this and was a far better President in spite of all his faults.

Tillerson directed offshore company used in Russia deals

www.publicintegrity.org...

deep ties between Exxon's Rex Tillerson and Russia

money.cnn.com...

a reply to: CB328

You can not deny the implications that the Hillary campaign have on some of the crap that was to be created to overshadow the opposing political candidate character, no it was not one side it was both sides, but I am sure that the DNC and Hillary behind it are not coming out of this pure and bleached, they are as guilty as been liars too and their scheme backfired.

That Dossier was a fake, a pay by somebody in Washington for character assassination, Hillary didn't need to have somebody assassinating her character because her record since the 70s did that for her and is well documented.

Taking advantage of Trump been as a businessman with dealing all over the world for his advantage and looking for a good deal will link him automatically with all kind of people, and that makes it easier to call him a traitor.

The media too all the leaks that were given to them by the so call experts on leaked information coming from the Washington post and NY times and made them into sensationalism.

Even if the leaks and the sources where not real.

But what can you do, when the CIA and the owner of the Washington post have deals and that is a fact, deals in millions of dollars, no wonder they get the scoops first.

originally posted by: CB328
Trump and his buddies are trying to use the White house to make billions of dollars.

Billions, huh? Okay.

They are criminals and traitors and anyone who supports them is either a traitor or an idiot.

Doubling down on your own omnipotence, eh?

Obama has nothing even remotely close to this and was a far better President in spite of all his faults.

We have very different priorities and values then... I wish that money was the worst of it. Obama's actions in the middle east have enabled and empowered terrorists -- both directly and indirectly, deliberately and "accidentally" -- and untold numbers of people have suffered and are suffering... and others died horrible deaths...

Nothing even remotely close indeed.

So now anybody that have links or talk to Russia is a traitor, darn the entire US government is are traitors,

How come they are nick picking now I wonder why, hell lets bring Billy and Hillary, they have many links too.

Maybe Billy should return the 500,000 dollars he took from Russia. I guess under the media term of traitor he falls on his arse as one too.

a reply to: CB328

What did Democrats in the Senate think about all that during the confirmation hearings ?

Hell let me keep on going I am all fired up right now.

Yes, Trump and all his cabinet are not to be portrayed as Russian agents and traitors, but nobody wants to hear how dip in Crap the Clintons and Russia were in too.

Because just like any other business they love money and lots of it, greed, corruption and foundation laundering of it, millions and millions of it.

Trump is an agent, a Traitor he was in cohorts with Russia on and on and on, in the media pushed by the Democrats and the leaks

One-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was an advisor to the pro-Russian Ukrainian president. A traitors now by the media

Former Trump advisor Carter Page had energy deals involving Russian companies. Another traitor by the media

Former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn gave a nicely paid speech in Moscow as a private citizen and was less than complete in explaining his conversations with Russian officials. Another traitor

Attorney General (former senator) Jeff Session, while a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, communicated with the Russian Ambassador—something senators do fairly regularly.Another traitor

If that is all they have hell the media and those pushing the Trump Russian links are falling short and looking in the wrong places

the Clintons and their closest aides have maintained with Russian government officials for years, including while they were in public office. Unlike the revelations so far concerning Russian ties in the Trump camp, the Clinton deals involved hundreds of millions of dollars and enormous favors that benefitted Russian interests.

Bill and Hillary Clinton received large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Bill Clinton was paid a cool $500,000 (well above his normal fee) for a speech in Moscow in 2010. Who footed the bill? An investment firm in Moscow called Renaissance Capital, which boasts deep ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation itself took money from Russian officials and Putin-connected oligarchs. They also took donations from:
•Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin confidant who gave through his company, Renova Group
• Andrey Vavilov, a former Russian government official who was Chairman of SuperOx, a research company that was part of the “nuclear Cluster” at the Russian government’s Skolkovo research facility
• Elena Baturina, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow, who apparently gave them money through JSC Inteco, an entity that she controls

Then there is the glaring fact that the Clinton Foundation also scored $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government in 2010. The deal required the approval of several federal government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, to buy assets that amounted to 20 percent of American uranium. Rosatom, by the way controls the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Equally troubling: some of those donations were hidden and not disclosed by the Clintons. President Obama required the Clinton Foundation to disclose all contributions as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State. But that did not happen. The only reason the hidden donations ever came to light is because we uncovered them by combing through Canadian tax records.

Everyone got what they wanted in this deal: the uranium investors made a nice profit; the Russians acquired a strategic asset; and the Clinton Foundation bagged a lot of money.

Hillary Clinton says she was not involved in the decision to approve the sale of Uranium One. As proof, the Clinton campaign in 2015 trotted out her former aide, Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez, to say publicly that we should take his word for it that she was not involved in approving that deal. But as we now know from the leaked Podesta emails, Fernandez was all too eager to help Podesta kill the story, while getting other favors from Podesta. That raises questions about the veracity of his comments.

www.foxnews.com...

This are the real Traitors and nobody wants to hear about their corruption

What a joke.

8 questions the Russia counterintelligence probe still needs to answer

~~What was the nature of current and former associates of Donald Trump with Russia?
~~Did the Obama admin improperly unmask and read accidental NSA intercepts of Trump/associates?
~~Were journalists or organizations posing as journalism institutions used by Russia to disrupt the U.S. election?
~~Who leaked the FBI FISA intercepts of conversations last December between Flynn and the Russian ambassador?
~~Did the FBI use information from an uncorroborated dossier of disparaging Trump information to request a FISA warrant?
~~Why did Russia hack American voter rolls and could its intelligence agencies hack ballot results in future elections?
~~Will the intelligence community assessment of Russia's intent in 2016 be revised?
~~Could there still be criminal charges from this probe?
----------------------------------------

Obama's rule changes opened door for NSA intercepts of Americans to reach political hands

For years, the NSA has been required to follow strict rules to protect the accidental intercepts of Americans from being consumed or misused by other government agencies. The rules required a process known as minimization, where the identity and information about an American who was intercepted is redacted or masked with generic references like “American No. 1.”

The number of senior government officials who could approve unmasking had been limited to just a few, like the NSA director himself.

And in his final days in office, Obama created the largest ever expansion of access to non-minimized NSA intercepts, creating a path for all U.S. intelligence to gain access to unmasked reports by changes encoded in a Reagan-era Executive Order 12333.

The government officials who could request or approve an exception to unmask a U.S. citizen’s identity has grown substantially. The NSA now has 20 executives who can approve the unmasking of American information inside intercepts, and the FBI has similar numbers.

And executives in 16 agencies -- not just the FBI, CIA and NSA -- have the right to request unmasked information.

Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials -- ATS thread here.

Susan Rice, who served as the National Security Adviser under President Obama, has been identified as the official who requested unmasking of incoming Trump officials, Cernovich Media can exclusively report.

The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.

Upon learning of Rice’s actions, H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.

This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.

Fmr. FBI Asst. Director: Farkas Exposed ‘Conspiracy Cabal’ on Trump Surveillance

On Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that the National Security Council had uncovered other instances of unmasking and that administration officials would share it with the chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

James Kallstrom, a former assistant director of the FBI, told LifeZette it is troubling that Farkas even knew about the intelligence reports that she urged officials to spread to congressional staffers.

“How does somebody who’s not even in the administration anymore, who’s in civilian life, have access to this information?” he asked. “What kind of conspiracy cabal is this?”

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials does not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

In my book it vindicates Trump. He may have phrased it poorly, but he was being spied upon by Obama's White House. I'm not playing their semantics with this. It is what it is.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance.

At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

It seems to me that those logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons were only available from the executive branch, so no contradiction there -- It's just no one knew those reports included the logs of Rice's requests!

originally posted by: Boadicea

In my book it vindicates Trump. He may have phrased it poorly, but he was being spied upon by Obama's White House. I'm not playing their semantics with this. It is what it is.

Damn right it does. Democrats are playing semantic games by clinging to the word "wiretap," but the simple fact is Obama was spying on Trump, for political purposes.

I think Obama's vacation in the South Pacific is going to be a very long one. Four years at least, possibly eight if the Dems are retarded enough to run Hillary again.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Damn right it does. Democrats are playing semantic games by clinging to the word "wiretap," but the simple fact is Obama was spying on Trump, for political purposes.

Thank you! That's exactly what it is!!!

As another commenter posted out, can't help but notice how it's gone from Trump/Russia collusion to hack the election, to interfering in the election, to just influencing the election... this did not play out the way they expected!

But the media is playing that same game -- probably because they have to downplay their own criminal complicity in receiving and publishing the leaks. It's personal now. And when all is said and done, I'll bet we find out some Republicans were right there with the Dems and the media, starting with the RINOs and the Never Trumpers.

I think Obama's vacation in the South Pacific is going to be a very long one. Four years at least, possibly eight if the Dems are retarded enough to run Hillary again.

At one time, I would have thought it was just coincidence. Now, I'm not so sure. At the very least, even if it was a coincidence initially, it's very very convenient now. It does strike me as odd that the Obamas claimed they wanted to stay in DC so their younger daughter could finish high school -- which is very reasonable -- and then Obama takes extended vacations all over the world??? Doesn't make sense.

I really really hope they get a search warrant for Obama's new DC digs...

Soo we have a winner, somebody have to take the blame for all the targeting that the Obama administration has done on Trump her name is Susan Rice

Eli Lake Confirms Susan Rice Was Trump Team Un-Masker, Fox’s Housely Concurs

Sunday night there were reports that Susan Rice, National Security Adviser for President Obama was the “senior official” mentioned who un-masked, the names of the Trump transition team. This morning those reports were confirmed, first by Eli Lake, and then by Adam Housely of Fox who added additional facts to Lake’s scoop.

Susan Rice as you may remember, was the person Obama sent to all five Sunday news shows, to falsely blame the Benghazi attack on a YouTube trailer for an anti-Islam video. In other words, if Lake’s story is true (and I don’t doubt it) this wouldn’t be the first-time Rice sacrificed her integrity for politics.

Bloomberg reporter Eli Lake confirmed that it was Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice who requested the “un-masking” of the U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports. She requested the un-masking on dozens of occasions involving the Trump transition team.

lidblog.com...

Whoa, just whoa.

We got a winner.

a reply to: marg6043

Whoa, just whoa.

We got a winner.

Pretty crazy, eh? Real names too!!! I really didn't expect the noose to tighten so quickly.

But I don't think it's anywhere near over... we're in for a bumpy ride as these self-entitled critters go into survival mode. Desperate people do desperate things.

a reply to: Boadicea

Oh, sorry I see you had the story already I just came upon your post, hey but is ok I just posted again.

a reply to: marg6043

www.washingtonpost.com... 27dc120_story.html?utm_term=.78d42398c6e7

So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America’s global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.

Susan Rice

So yeah
Why was this person not removed from any government position after she told the video lie?
She was stupid enough to push that at the behest of her masters; we know she was not smart enough to dream this scheme up herself. Who else does this lead to?

Oh and may I point out this intel HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA.