THE HILL
"When will the media stop shamelessly prostrating itself before Hillary Clinton?"
Opinion by Merrill Matthews, Opinion Contributor
21 JUNE 2022
Another major media interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, another missed opportunity to ask Clinton about her role in the Russian collusion scam.
Edward Luce, the U.S. national editor for the Financial Times (FT), recently interviewed Clinton over lunch at a Washington hotel.
FT published parts of the interview on June 18.
Like virtually every other reporter with the mainstream media, Luce asked mostly softball questions and never asked about what she knew and when she knew it with respect to her campaign’s financing of the now-discredited Steele dossier.
It isn’t that Luce is unaware of the allegations.
As an aside, he notes that the interview took place on the day a Clinton campaign legal adviser, Michael Sussmann, was acquitted of the charge “that he improperly influenced the FBI to investigate links between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.”
But the big news from the Sussmann trial was that Clinton’s former campaign manager, Robby Mook, testified that Clinton knew and approved the Steele dossier project in an effort to undermine Donald Trump.
George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley outlined the whole scheme in The Hill: “(T)here was her former campaign manager, Robby Mook, telling a jury that Clinton personally approved a plan to spread the claim of covert communications between the Trump organization and the Russian bank.”
The tentacles of this scheme eventually led to falsely accusing several other people of collusion, an FBI agent lying to the FISA Court, widespread media promotion as if it were a true story and eventually a special counsel, Robert Mueller, who spent two years and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating the allegations only to find no evidence of Russian collusion.
Turley concludes: “It was one of the most successful disinformation campaigns in American politics, and Mook implicated Clinton as green-lighting the gas-lighting of the electorate.”
And did I mention that last March it was reported that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the Clinton campaign $8,000 and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) $105,000 for “failing to properly report money spent on research for the dossier”?
The Clinton campaign paid $175,000 and the DNC paid more than $849,000 for what they falsely claimed were “legal services,” when what they were really doing was funding the Steele dossier.
Clinton’s paying the fine was a tacit admission of guilt.
Shouldn’t those facts make a reporter curious?
Not Luce.
If he asked Clinton about those issues, they don’t appear in his rather fawning interview.
In fact, Clinton has conducted several public interviews in the past few months (e.g., with “PBS NewsHour’s” Judy Woodruff and on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”) to talk about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, women’s rights and other issues.
She also talked with NPR’s Scott Simon last October.
The reporters and interviewers often asked for her thoughts on the state of democracy in the United States.
Not one of those interviewers or others that I have seen has brought up Clinton’s involvement and funding of the Steele dossier.
Or as Turley so vividly put it, her “green-lighting the gas-lighting of the electorate.”
But they have given her time to express her deep concerns about democracy in the United States, and she gladly embraces the opportunity.
The Financial Times’ Luce quotes Clinton as saying at the end of the interview.
“We are standing on the precipice of losing our democracy, and everything that everybody else cares about then goes out the window.”
I think it’s fair to say that most mainstream media journalists, if given the chance to interview Trump, would press him about his false claims that he won the 2020 election.
They would see that as a journalistic duty, and they would be right.
But those same journalists, when given the chance to interview Clinton, seem too enamored and thankful to be in the great lady’s presence to bring up her own role in undermining democracy.
Luce ends the interview with this Clinton quote, “Look, the most important thing is to win the next election."
"The alternative is so frightening that whatever does not help you win should not be a priority.”
Clinton took extraordinary steps to try to win the 2016 election.
Should “whatever does not help you win should not be a priority” be a warning to all of us about steps she or others may take in 2022 — or 2024?
Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 51f1325db6
THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
THE HILL
"Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton"
Opinion by Douglas E. Schoen, opinion contributor
3 JULY 2022
Earlier this year, I co-authored a piece for The Wall Street Journal that argued that a perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once unfathomable scenario — a comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024 — highly plausible.
Our reasoning was that President Biden’s low approval rating, doubt about his capacity to run again, Vice President Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket have created a leadership vacuum within the party that only Clinton — as an experienced and politically savvy “change candidate” — can fill.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — upending decades of precedent and revoking a constitutional right that American women have enjoyed for half a century — the case for Clinton’s candidacy is even clearer.
Regardless of one’s own political affiliation or opinion of Clinton, the country knows her as an experienced politician and a champion of women’s rights.
From her declaration at the United Nations in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights” to being the first woman nominated as a major party’s candidate for president in 2016, she offers the exact type of leadership that the Democratic Party desperately needs.
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Put another way, the stakes are simply too high for Democrats to remain on this slowly sinking ship.
Democrats are headed for a blowout loss in November, even worse than in 1994 and 2010 — the two worst midterm election years for the party in recent history — when they lost 53 and 63 seats, respectively, per Gallup’s analysis of four key national mood indicators.
Indeed, Biden’s approval rating is lower than both Obama’s and Clinton’s at the same points in their presidencies, and Americans in 2022 are less satisfied with the direction of the country, more negative about the economy and more disapproving of Congress.
Polls generally show Republicans with a lead of at least 2 or 3 points in the 2022 generic vote for Congress.
This advantage would likely give the GOP a solid majority in the House — considering the favorable Republican rulings in redistricting litigation in key states as well as the likelihood that Republican turnout will be even higher than most pollsters are currently accounting for.
While Biden was the right person to defeat former President Trump in 2020, he is clearly not the right person to lead the Democratic Party going forward — as only 36 percent of Democrats believe that Biden gives them the best chance to win the presidency in 2024, per recent polling.
To be sure, Democrats’ confidence in Biden will only decline further after the party experiences a shellacking in the midterm elections.
These voters will be looking for a change candidate who is experienced, effective, savvy and committed to the issues they care most about — namely, women’s rights and civil rights.
At that point, Clinton will have a unique opportunity to position herself as an experienced candidate capable of leading Democrats on a more successful path who will also fight — as she has done her entire career — for women’s rights.
As John Ellis wrote this week, “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.”
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Aside from Clinton, the Democratic Party lacks any other rising stars who could take the torch from Biden — if he chooses not to run — and win in a general election.
The most natural successor would be Harris.
However, Harris is even more unpopular than Biden and would almost guarantee a Republican victory in 2024.
Further, Harris’s response to Roe being overturned missed the mark, as she was widely criticized for trying to make the case that abortion access will greatly impact America’s sons.
Ultimately, Clinton is the only prominent Democrat with the experience, the campaign infrastructure, the political know-how and the proven track record who can win a general election.
As Fox News Channel’s Juan Williams wrote earlier this week, “Democrats need a strong voice ready to fight to restore women’s rights, now that the Supreme Court has struck down Roe v. Wade."
"There’s only one Hillary Clinton.”
If Democrats want a chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Clinton is — now more than ever — their best chance.
Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 076f643323
"Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton"
Opinion by Douglas E. Schoen, opinion contributor
3 JULY 2022
Earlier this year, I co-authored a piece for The Wall Street Journal that argued that a perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once unfathomable scenario — a comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024 — highly plausible.
Our reasoning was that President Biden’s low approval rating, doubt about his capacity to run again, Vice President Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket have created a leadership vacuum within the party that only Clinton — as an experienced and politically savvy “change candidate” — can fill.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — upending decades of precedent and revoking a constitutional right that American women have enjoyed for half a century — the case for Clinton’s candidacy is even clearer.
Regardless of one’s own political affiliation or opinion of Clinton, the country knows her as an experienced politician and a champion of women’s rights.
From her declaration at the United Nations in 1995 that “women’s rights are human rights” to being the first woman nominated as a major party’s candidate for president in 2016, she offers the exact type of leadership that the Democratic Party desperately needs.
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Put another way, the stakes are simply too high for Democrats to remain on this slowly sinking ship.
Democrats are headed for a blowout loss in November, even worse than in 1994 and 2010 — the two worst midterm election years for the party in recent history — when they lost 53 and 63 seats, respectively, per Gallup’s analysis of four key national mood indicators.
Indeed, Biden’s approval rating is lower than both Obama’s and Clinton’s at the same points in their presidencies, and Americans in 2022 are less satisfied with the direction of the country, more negative about the economy and more disapproving of Congress.
Polls generally show Republicans with a lead of at least 2 or 3 points in the 2022 generic vote for Congress.
This advantage would likely give the GOP a solid majority in the House — considering the favorable Republican rulings in redistricting litigation in key states as well as the likelihood that Republican turnout will be even higher than most pollsters are currently accounting for.
While Biden was the right person to defeat former President Trump in 2020, he is clearly not the right person to lead the Democratic Party going forward — as only 36 percent of Democrats believe that Biden gives them the best chance to win the presidency in 2024, per recent polling.
To be sure, Democrats’ confidence in Biden will only decline further after the party experiences a shellacking in the midterm elections.
These voters will be looking for a change candidate who is experienced, effective, savvy and committed to the issues they care most about — namely, women’s rights and civil rights.
At that point, Clinton will have a unique opportunity to position herself as an experienced candidate capable of leading Democrats on a more successful path who will also fight — as she has done her entire career — for women’s rights.
As John Ellis wrote this week, “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.”
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Aside from Clinton, the Democratic Party lacks any other rising stars who could take the torch from Biden — if he chooses not to run — and win in a general election.
The most natural successor would be Harris.
However, Harris is even more unpopular than Biden and would almost guarantee a Republican victory in 2024.
Further, Harris’s response to Roe being overturned missed the mark, as she was widely criticized for trying to make the case that abortion access will greatly impact America’s sons.
Ultimately, Clinton is the only prominent Democrat with the experience, the campaign infrastructure, the political know-how and the proven track record who can win a general election.
As Fox News Channel’s Juan Williams wrote earlier this week, “Democrats need a strong voice ready to fight to restore women’s rights, now that the Supreme Court has struck down Roe v. Wade."
"There’s only one Hillary Clinton.”
If Democrats want a chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Clinton is — now more than ever — their best chance.
Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 076f643323
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
The Daily Signal
"The Crybaby Leftist Mind"
Commentary By Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson
Modern progressives assume moral and intellectual authority.
Consequently, their supposedly superior ends naturally justify almost any means necessary to achieve them.
Among the elite, the Democrats’ “blue wall” states were once considered a testament to the wisdom of the Electoral College.
When that wall crumbled in 2016 to Donald Trump, the Electoral College suddenly was blasted as a relic of our anti-democratic Founders.
The nine-person Supreme Court was once beloved.
On issues like abortion, school prayer, same-sex marriage, pornography, and Miranda rights, the left cheered the court as it made the law and ignored legislatures and presidents.
Republican court picks — Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, Lewis Powell, John Roberts, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, and Earl Warren — would often flip leftward.
How could they not be swayed by the greater brilliance of their liberal colleagues?
From affirmative action to Roe v. Wade to Obamacare, apostate Republican justices for a half-century greenlighted legislating from the bench.
In response, was there any serious right-wing talk of packing the court with six additional justices to slow down its overreaching left-wing majority — or of a mob massing at the home of a left-wing justice?
Certainly not.
But now?
Suddenly a narrow constructionist majority has returned matters of abortion to the states.
And the once-beloved court is being slandered by leftist insurrectionists as illegitimate.
Every sort of once-unthinkable attack on the courts is now permissible.
Confidential draft opinions are leaked illegally.
A senior senator threatens justices by name at the doors of the court.
The homes of justices are surrounded by heckling protesters.
And the very life of a justice is threatened by a would-be assassin close to his home.
Consider also the Senate filibuster.
Former President Barack Obama not long ago ranted that it was racist and a 180-year-old relic.
Obama’s logic was infantile.
When Democrats were in the Senate minority, he was giddy that the filibuster could slow down the Republican majority.
Indeed, while a senator, Obama himself filibustered the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
When Democrats were in the majority, however, a pouting Obama blasted the filibuster as a racist, Jim Crow roadblock.
Can the Jan. 6 committee issue some universal declaration that defeated candidates should not question the integrity of an election, much less call for it to be ignored?
Apparently not.
In 2016, a defeated Hillary Clinton claimed the winner, Donald Trump, was illegitimate —this from the architect of the entire Russian-collusion hoax.
Clinton then trumped her own inflammatory rhetoric by urging President Joe Biden not to accept the 2020 tally of the balloting if he lost.
Former President Jimmy Carter agreed that Clinton won the 2016 election and Trump was thus illegitimate.
Hollywood actors appeared in commercials, insurrectionary-style, urging Republican electors to renounce their constitutional duties and instead elect Clinton.
On racial matters, the left is most intellectually bankrupt.
During the recent confirmation hearings of an African American nominee to the Supreme Court, federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the left alleged that tough questioners were racists and sexists for “bullying” Jackson.
Yet she got the kid-glove treatment compared with the character assassinations of past conservative nominees.
Brett Kavanaugh was smeared as teen-aged rapist and targeted by former Democratic media heartthrob Michael Avenatti, now an imprisoned felon.
Currently, loud mobs of affluent, young white women have been circling the home of African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — just 1 of 5 court justices who voted to let the states decide the status of abortion.
Thomas did not write the majority opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, but then again, leftists have a toxic fixation with blacks who do not appreciate their condescension.
In the left-wing mind, the buffoonish Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was an “insurrection.”
Yet, the much larger May 31, 2020, riot that sought to storm the White House grounds and sent the president into a bunker was the sort of mob violence that “was not going to stop,” in the words of now-Vice President Kamala Harris.
The recent pro-abortion mob assault on the Arizona state Senate, the left insists, was an apparent cry of the heart.
What would the left do if after the 2022 midterms, a Republican-majority Congress emulated its own infantile tantrums?
Imagine a new House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tearing up Biden’s State of the Union address on live television.
How about the House impeaching Biden twice, even as a private citizen in 2025?
Envision a 22-month, $40 million investigation of the entire Biden quid pro quo, corrupt family syndicate?
What if McCarthy booted left-wing congressional representatives from key select committees?
And what if conservatives showed up screaming at the gates of one of Obama’s three mansions?
How odd that leftists are destroying the very customs and traditions whose loss will come back to haunt them when the Democrats lose the Congress in November.
Crybaby tantrums won’t win over the public.
These nonstop, puerile meltdowns have turned off most Americans who tire of whiny narcissistic hypocrites.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won." You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.
"The Crybaby Leftist Mind"
Commentary By Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson
Modern progressives assume moral and intellectual authority.
Consequently, their supposedly superior ends naturally justify almost any means necessary to achieve them.
Among the elite, the Democrats’ “blue wall” states were once considered a testament to the wisdom of the Electoral College.
When that wall crumbled in 2016 to Donald Trump, the Electoral College suddenly was blasted as a relic of our anti-democratic Founders.
The nine-person Supreme Court was once beloved.
On issues like abortion, school prayer, same-sex marriage, pornography, and Miranda rights, the left cheered the court as it made the law and ignored legislatures and presidents.
Republican court picks — Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, Lewis Powell, John Roberts, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, and Earl Warren — would often flip leftward.
How could they not be swayed by the greater brilliance of their liberal colleagues?
From affirmative action to Roe v. Wade to Obamacare, apostate Republican justices for a half-century greenlighted legislating from the bench.
In response, was there any serious right-wing talk of packing the court with six additional justices to slow down its overreaching left-wing majority — or of a mob massing at the home of a left-wing justice?
Certainly not.
But now?
Suddenly a narrow constructionist majority has returned matters of abortion to the states.
And the once-beloved court is being slandered by leftist insurrectionists as illegitimate.
Every sort of once-unthinkable attack on the courts is now permissible.
Confidential draft opinions are leaked illegally.
A senior senator threatens justices by name at the doors of the court.
The homes of justices are surrounded by heckling protesters.
And the very life of a justice is threatened by a would-be assassin close to his home.
Consider also the Senate filibuster.
Former President Barack Obama not long ago ranted that it was racist and a 180-year-old relic.
Obama’s logic was infantile.
When Democrats were in the Senate minority, he was giddy that the filibuster could slow down the Republican majority.
Indeed, while a senator, Obama himself filibustered the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
When Democrats were in the majority, however, a pouting Obama blasted the filibuster as a racist, Jim Crow roadblock.
Can the Jan. 6 committee issue some universal declaration that defeated candidates should not question the integrity of an election, much less call for it to be ignored?
Apparently not.
In 2016, a defeated Hillary Clinton claimed the winner, Donald Trump, was illegitimate —this from the architect of the entire Russian-collusion hoax.
Clinton then trumped her own inflammatory rhetoric by urging President Joe Biden not to accept the 2020 tally of the balloting if he lost.
Former President Jimmy Carter agreed that Clinton won the 2016 election and Trump was thus illegitimate.
Hollywood actors appeared in commercials, insurrectionary-style, urging Republican electors to renounce their constitutional duties and instead elect Clinton.
On racial matters, the left is most intellectually bankrupt.
During the recent confirmation hearings of an African American nominee to the Supreme Court, federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the left alleged that tough questioners were racists and sexists for “bullying” Jackson.
Yet she got the kid-glove treatment compared with the character assassinations of past conservative nominees.
Brett Kavanaugh was smeared as teen-aged rapist and targeted by former Democratic media heartthrob Michael Avenatti, now an imprisoned felon.
Currently, loud mobs of affluent, young white women have been circling the home of African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — just 1 of 5 court justices who voted to let the states decide the status of abortion.
Thomas did not write the majority opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, but then again, leftists have a toxic fixation with blacks who do not appreciate their condescension.
In the left-wing mind, the buffoonish Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was an “insurrection.”
Yet, the much larger May 31, 2020, riot that sought to storm the White House grounds and sent the president into a bunker was the sort of mob violence that “was not going to stop,” in the words of now-Vice President Kamala Harris.
The recent pro-abortion mob assault on the Arizona state Senate, the left insists, was an apparent cry of the heart.
What would the left do if after the 2022 midterms, a Republican-majority Congress emulated its own infantile tantrums?
Imagine a new House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tearing up Biden’s State of the Union address on live television.
How about the House impeaching Biden twice, even as a private citizen in 2025?
Envision a 22-month, $40 million investigation of the entire Biden quid pro quo, corrupt family syndicate?
What if McCarthy booted left-wing congressional representatives from key select committees?
And what if conservatives showed up screaming at the gates of one of Obama’s three mansions?
How odd that leftists are destroying the very customs and traditions whose loss will come back to haunt them when the Democrats lose the Congress in November.
Crybaby tantrums won’t win over the public.
These nonstop, puerile meltdowns have turned off most Americans who tire of whiny narcissistic hypocrites.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won." You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Grassley wants answers on Clinton ‘kid gloves’ treatment after FBI Trump raid"
Jerry Dunleavy
16 AUGUST 2022
A top Republican senator is demanding answers from the FBI, arguing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received “kid gloves” treatment during the bureau's investigation into her private email server, especially compared to the raid of Mar-a-Lago.
Clinton was the subject of a lengthy investigation, at the end of which she was not prosecuted.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wants FBI Director Christopher Wray to answer questions about the FBI's handling of the Clinton investigation, as well as the investigation into former President Donald Trump in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid.
“The reporting thus far draws contrasts from how the Justice Department and FBI treated Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information,” Grassley told Wray.
“Even though Secretary Clinton and her attorneys did not hand over classified records in their possession for many months, they were not subject to a raid similar to what occurred at Mar-a-Lago.”
The FBI's Clinton investigation looked into her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.
It was hosted in the basement of her New York home.
“Based on news reports, Trump has not been provided the same treatment given to Secretary Clinton and her associates,” Grassley said, adding that he raised concerns in 2016 with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch about Clinton and her associates "receiving kid gloves treatment."
The senator asked, “Did the FBI engage in the same conduct with respect to former President Trump and Mar-a-Lago?"
"If not, why not?”
Grassley also pointed specifically to the “infamous Wilkinson letters” by Beth Wilkinson, an attorney who represented former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Mills deputy Heather Samuelson.
The senator said the letters were “incorporated by reference into the immunity agreements” for Mills and Samuelson, with the letters laying out “the precise manner” by which the Justice Department and FBI would access and use information stored on email archives from laptops belonging to the duo.
Grassley said the letters “inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation” and that the bureau “inexplicably agreed to destroy” the Mills and Samuelson laptops despite them being under congressional subpoena.
Clinton was investigated under 18 U.S.C. 793(f), whose statute cites “gross negligence.”
Comey said that “although we did not find clear evidence” that Clinton or her associates “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
An earlier FBI draft used the term "grossly negligent."
Trump is being investigated for a possible Espionage Act violation under 18 U.S.C. and possible obstruction of justice, according to the warrant unsealed Friday.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said last week that he “personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant.
The Justice Department is opposing making public the underlying affidavit justifying the raid.
Grassley asked if Wray was aware of the pending Mar-a-Lago raid when he was in front of the Senate, when he and Garland approved it, what discussions he and the attorney general had about it, what the legal justification for the search was, and what the investigation scope is.
The senator also asked Wray if he discussed the warrant with anyone at the White House.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... b210cf2ce2
"Grassley wants answers on Clinton ‘kid gloves’ treatment after FBI Trump raid"
Jerry Dunleavy
16 AUGUST 2022
A top Republican senator is demanding answers from the FBI, arguing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received “kid gloves” treatment during the bureau's investigation into her private email server, especially compared to the raid of Mar-a-Lago.
Clinton was the subject of a lengthy investigation, at the end of which she was not prosecuted.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wants FBI Director Christopher Wray to answer questions about the FBI's handling of the Clinton investigation, as well as the investigation into former President Donald Trump in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid.
“The reporting thus far draws contrasts from how the Justice Department and FBI treated Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of highly classified information,” Grassley told Wray.
“Even though Secretary Clinton and her attorneys did not hand over classified records in their possession for many months, they were not subject to a raid similar to what occurred at Mar-a-Lago.”
The FBI's Clinton investigation looked into her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.
It was hosted in the basement of her New York home.
“Based on news reports, Trump has not been provided the same treatment given to Secretary Clinton and her associates,” Grassley said, adding that he raised concerns in 2016 with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch about Clinton and her associates "receiving kid gloves treatment."
The senator asked, “Did the FBI engage in the same conduct with respect to former President Trump and Mar-a-Lago?"
"If not, why not?”
Grassley also pointed specifically to the “infamous Wilkinson letters” by Beth Wilkinson, an attorney who represented former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Mills deputy Heather Samuelson.
The senator said the letters were “incorporated by reference into the immunity agreements” for Mills and Samuelson, with the letters laying out “the precise manner” by which the Justice Department and FBI would access and use information stored on email archives from laptops belonging to the duo.
Grassley said the letters “inappropriately restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation” and that the bureau “inexplicably agreed to destroy” the Mills and Samuelson laptops despite them being under congressional subpoena.
Clinton was investigated under 18 U.S.C. 793(f), whose statute cites “gross negligence.”
Comey said that “although we did not find clear evidence” that Clinton or her associates “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
An earlier FBI draft used the term "grossly negligent."
Trump is being investigated for a possible Espionage Act violation under 18 U.S.C. and possible obstruction of justice, according to the warrant unsealed Friday.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said last week that he “personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant.
The Justice Department is opposing making public the underlying affidavit justifying the raid.
Grassley asked if Wray was aware of the pending Mar-a-Lago raid when he was in front of the Senate, when he and Garland approved it, what discussions he and the attorney general had about it, what the legal justification for the search was, and what the investigation scope is.
The senator also asked Wray if he discussed the warrant with anyone at the White House.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... b210cf2ce2
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
REUTERSTHE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 11, 2022 AT 10:38 AM
What absolute crap this is about ANYBODY “stealing” from women their supposed “right” to murder an unborn child.
Has Democrat WITCH HUNTER, demagogue and agent provacateur Elaine Luria ever read Roe v. Wade?
IF she had, she would know that Roe v. Wade NEVER guaranteed an unqualified right to an abortion on demand.
And more to the point, has she bothered to read Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., No. 19–1392, decided June 24, 2022, or is she simply screeching to hear herself screech?
DOBBS REAFFIRMS DEMOCRACY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE:
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Think about it, people – WHY DOES ELAINE LURIA HATE DEMOCRACY?
WHY DOES SHE HATE AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DEMOCRATS?
What Dobbs does say about the DEMOCRACY Elaine Luria hates is this:
Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150; Casey, 505 U. S., at 852.
But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently.
The Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.
end quotes
THAT, people, is DEMOCRACY – the people’s elected representatives in their state deciding if and how abortion should be regulated, which is a far cry from saying abortions are now banned.
What hysterical horse**** that is, but it won’t stop the screechers like Elaine Luria screeching about it as she tries to score some cheap political points off of the hysteria she is intentionally provoking, just as she is provoking political violence with her inflammatory rhetoric as a PELOSI WITCH HUNTER.
IF before screeching, Elaine Luria had actually done what one would think a distinguished naval officer such as herself should have done, which is to know what one is actually talking about before engaging the mouth, she would know that the Dobbs Court said thusly about the supposed “UNQUALIFIED RIGHT” to abortion, to wit:
Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851.
Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.
What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.”
None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion.
Accordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.
end quotes
But Democrats do not like the word “MORALITY,” do they, and so they see “moral” decisions being made by people “NOT LIKE THEM” as those moral people “stealing” something from them.
As to Roe being ANTI-DEMOCRACY, and why it was proper to overturn it as BAD LAW, the Dobbs Court went on to say as follows:
The nature of the Court’s error.
Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.
Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side.
Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life — could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views.
The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.
end quotes
And that is exactly why Elaine Luria and her fellow SCREECHING DEMOCRATS loved Roe – BECAUSE IT STRIPPED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DON’T AGREE WITH THEM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS!
So think carefully, people, before November comes around and it is time for you to cast your vote.
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE REPRESENTED IN CONGRESS BY A HATE-FILLED IGNORANT DEMOCRAT WHO HATES DEMOCRACY FOR ANYONE NOT A DEMOCRAT?
Or is it time for someone different who is capable of actually engaging in rational thought and dialogue.
Your choice.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-689228
"Analysis: Despite U.S. inflation's bite, Democratic voters are energized for midterms"
By Jason Lange and Tim Reid
September 13, 2022
WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The unexpected rise in inflation reported on Tuesday was an unwelcome blow for President Joe Biden's Democrats, but a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Democratic voters just as enthusiastic as their Republican counterparts, pointing to a potentially close contest in November's elections.
Republicans remain favored to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives - with the Senate on a knife-edge - amid widespread dissatisfaction with Biden's presidency and months of sharp price increases that the poll showed remain the top concern for Republican and Democratic voters alike.
Labor Department data showed consumer prices rose a tenth of a point in August, confounding analysts' expectations for a decrease.
The rise was fueled by higher prices for food, rent and healthcare.
The results of a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, however, show Democrats appear just as eager to vote as Republicans, running counter to expectations that a weak economy would depress enthusiasm in the president's party, said Daron Shaw, an expert on polling and elections at the University of Texas at Austin.
Some 63% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans say they are completely certain they will vote in November, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Sept. 7-12.
In a Jan 31-Feb 7 poll, 55% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans said they were certain.
The similar levels of certainty in the latest poll suggest neither side may have an edge in voter turnout.
"Basically this points to a really close race," Shaw said.
The poll, which gathered responses from 4,411 U.S. adults, had a credibility interval of between 2 and 5 percentage points, meaning that the enthusiasm gap between the two parties is too small to tell who has the edge.
Democrats will be defending an 11-seat advantage in the House, while the 100-member Senate is split 50-50 between the two parties.
Of respondents in the new poll, 37% said they planned to vote for a Democrat in their congressional district, compared to 34% for Republicans.
Fifteen percent were undecided.
Political experts still see Republicans as having the better odds of controlling the House next year, in part because decades of elections have shown that the party in the White House typically loses seats during midterm elections.
`A DRAMATIC CONTRAST`
Democrats are struggling against major headwinds this year - Biden's poor popularity and the Ukraine war, which has helped to push inflation to 40-year highs.
Republicans have seized on inflation to hammer Democrats on the campaign trail and in television ads, blaming it on higher federal spending by Biden and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
"No issue defines the terms of this election as clearly as high prices for energy, groceries and other staple goods," said Republican strategist John Ashbrook.
Twenty-eight percent of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said inflation was America's biggest problem, with 20% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans selecting it from a list of issues in the poll.
Respondents picked Republicans over Democrats - 37% to 26% - as the party with a better plan to fight inflation.
Most respondents said the root cause of inflation was related to economic disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic or Ukraine war, a view shared by many economists, while only a third said federal government spending was the driver.
One factor behind Democratic enthusiasm appears to be outrage over a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that ended the right to an abortion.
Another is angst over Donald Trump's influence over U.S. politics, including his endorsement of Republican candidates who deny that Biden won the 2020 election.
One in five Democrats in the poll said America's biggest problem was political extremism or changes to abortion laws.
Democrats believe the advantage Republicans enjoyed for most of the year because of inflation has been blunted by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricting abortion rights, Trump’s continued false claims about the 2020 election and his deepening legal problems, and recent legislative wins for Biden on drug costs and climate change.
Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist, also pointed to Biden's recent speech slamming Trump and his followers as extremists.
"It's such a dramatic contrast," Finney said.
"That is mobilizing voters."
Reporting by Jason Lange in Washington and Tim Reid in Los Angeles; editing by Ross Colvin and Howard Goller
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/despit ... 022-09-13/
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Durham's Russiagate claim exposes FBI and DOJ's yearslong misinformation campaign"
Jerry Dunleavy
17 SEPTEMBER 2022
The extent of a yearslong misinformation campaign by the FBI and Justice Department regarding the alleged main source of disgraced Christopher Steele’s Trump dossier has been laid bare by John Durham's latest court filing.
Igor Danchenko, a U.S.-based Russian lawyer charged with five counts of making false statements to the bureau, was cashing a check from the FBI as a paid informant from March 2017 to October 2020, special counsel Durham claimed.
The revelation, released ahead of the Russian national's trial next month, casts a shadow over statements made by the DOJ and the FBI in recent years, as both agencies spoke positively of their confidential informant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as well as the House and Senate.
The FBI also misled DOJ leadership about Danchenko.
The bureau put together “Talking Points re Crossfire Hurricane Cases” dated March 8, 2017, with the FBI misdirecting about Steele and Danchenko.
At the meeting for DOJ and FBI leaders on March 6, 2017, then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe appeared to have led much of the presentation.
The FBI talking points referred to Steele as “CROWN” and repeated allegations in the dossier.
“CROWN’s reporting in this matter is derived primarily from a Russian-based source," the FBI incorrectly said.
The bureau had already interviewed Danchenko multiple times and knew he was based near Washington, D.C., not Russia.
The talking points also claimed that “the FBI has no control over the Russian-based sub-source.”
The FBI made him an informant that month.
The FBI also said Steele was a source, “some of whose reporting has been corroborated.”
Durham characterized the verification, or lack thereof, of the dossier quite differently.
“Over a fairly lengthy period of time, the FBI attempted to investigate, vet, and analyze the Steele Reports but ultimately was not able to confirm or corroborate most of their substantive allegations,” he wrote Tuesday.
Steele revealed to the FBI in late 2017 that Danchenko “has been doing a bit of work for us recently,” even as the Russian was simultaneously working for the bureau.
McCabe continued misleading when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017 that he was even more confident in the dossier than in 2016, but he said he couldn't provide specifics.
“I think that our folks have done a fair amount of work on trying to track down and vet the information in the Steele reporting,” McCabe claimed.
“I think that our folks have done a solid job in shedding light."
"... And I think that that work has not exposed any weaknesses or failures in the reporting.”
McCabe and fired FBI director James Comey pushed to include the dossier in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling.
McCabe answered “yes” when asked in December 2017 if Steele’s sources had been properly positioned to pass along the information alleged in the dossier.
But according to Durham’s indictment, Danchenko lied to the FBI about a phone call he claimed he received from Sergei Millian, an American citizen born in Belarus who the Steele source claimed told him about a conspiracy of cooperation between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russians.
Durham's indictment also said Danchenko anonymously sourced a fabricated claim about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to Hillary Clinton ally Chuck Dolan, who spent years, including 2016, doing work for Russian businesses and the Russian government.
The misleading efforts by the DOJ and the FBI continued during 2018, well into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Then-Assistant Attorney General John Demers told FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in a July 2018 letter that Danchenko had been “truthful and cooperative” with the FBI.
Demers also defended the flawed FISA applications against Trump campaign associate Carter Page.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz undermined the dossier’s Trump-Russia conspiracy claims in 2019 and his report criticized the DOJ and the FBI for “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele’s dossier.
Collyer later condemned the FBI's actions as "antithetical to the heightened duty of candor."
The FBI’s “Draft Talking Points” for a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing in February 2018 included further defenses of Steele and Danchenko.
The FBI said it "assessed that Steele relied on one primary sub-source” — Danchenko.
It then claimed Danchenko “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier."
But FBI notes of a January 2017 interview with Danchenko showed he told the bureau he “did not know the origins” of some Steele claims and “did not recall” other dossier information.
He noted much of what he passed to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay,” while some stemmed from “conversation ... with friends over beers” — while the most salacious allegations may have been made in “jest.”
“Our discussions with [Danchenko] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele,” the FBI's 2018 talking points nevertheless claimed, also arguing its informant “maintains trusted relationships with individuals who are capable of reporting on the material he collected for Steele" and that he and Steele "utilized reasonably sound intelligence tradecraft.”
FBI director Christopher Wray eventually concurred in 2020 with the Trump DOJ’s conclusions that at least some of the FISA warrants against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 9817043a8b
"Durham's Russiagate claim exposes FBI and DOJ's yearslong misinformation campaign"
Jerry Dunleavy
17 SEPTEMBER 2022
The extent of a yearslong misinformation campaign by the FBI and Justice Department regarding the alleged main source of disgraced Christopher Steele’s Trump dossier has been laid bare by John Durham's latest court filing.
Igor Danchenko, a U.S.-based Russian lawyer charged with five counts of making false statements to the bureau, was cashing a check from the FBI as a paid informant from March 2017 to October 2020, special counsel Durham claimed.
The revelation, released ahead of the Russian national's trial next month, casts a shadow over statements made by the DOJ and the FBI in recent years, as both agencies spoke positively of their confidential informant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as well as the House and Senate.
The FBI also misled DOJ leadership about Danchenko.
The bureau put together “Talking Points re Crossfire Hurricane Cases” dated March 8, 2017, with the FBI misdirecting about Steele and Danchenko.
At the meeting for DOJ and FBI leaders on March 6, 2017, then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe appeared to have led much of the presentation.
The FBI talking points referred to Steele as “CROWN” and repeated allegations in the dossier.
“CROWN’s reporting in this matter is derived primarily from a Russian-based source," the FBI incorrectly said.
The bureau had already interviewed Danchenko multiple times and knew he was based near Washington, D.C., not Russia.
The talking points also claimed that “the FBI has no control over the Russian-based sub-source.”
The FBI made him an informant that month.
The FBI also said Steele was a source, “some of whose reporting has been corroborated.”
Durham characterized the verification, or lack thereof, of the dossier quite differently.
“Over a fairly lengthy period of time, the FBI attempted to investigate, vet, and analyze the Steele Reports but ultimately was not able to confirm or corroborate most of their substantive allegations,” he wrote Tuesday.
Steele revealed to the FBI in late 2017 that Danchenko “has been doing a bit of work for us recently,” even as the Russian was simultaneously working for the bureau.
McCabe continued misleading when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017 that he was even more confident in the dossier than in 2016, but he said he couldn't provide specifics.
“I think that our folks have done a fair amount of work on trying to track down and vet the information in the Steele reporting,” McCabe claimed.
“I think that our folks have done a solid job in shedding light."
"... And I think that that work has not exposed any weaknesses or failures in the reporting.”
McCabe and fired FBI director James Comey pushed to include the dossier in the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling.
McCabe answered “yes” when asked in December 2017 if Steele’s sources had been properly positioned to pass along the information alleged in the dossier.
But according to Durham’s indictment, Danchenko lied to the FBI about a phone call he claimed he received from Sergei Millian, an American citizen born in Belarus who the Steele source claimed told him about a conspiracy of cooperation between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russians.
Durham's indictment also said Danchenko anonymously sourced a fabricated claim about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to Hillary Clinton ally Chuck Dolan, who spent years, including 2016, doing work for Russian businesses and the Russian government.
The misleading efforts by the DOJ and the FBI continued during 2018, well into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Then-Assistant Attorney General John Demers told FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in a July 2018 letter that Danchenko had been “truthful and cooperative” with the FBI.
Demers also defended the flawed FISA applications against Trump campaign associate Carter Page.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz undermined the dossier’s Trump-Russia conspiracy claims in 2019 and his report criticized the DOJ and the FBI for “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele’s dossier.
Collyer later condemned the FBI's actions as "antithetical to the heightened duty of candor."
The FBI’s “Draft Talking Points” for a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing in February 2018 included further defenses of Steele and Danchenko.
The FBI said it "assessed that Steele relied on one primary sub-source” — Danchenko.
It then claimed Danchenko “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier."
But FBI notes of a January 2017 interview with Danchenko showed he told the bureau he “did not know the origins” of some Steele claims and “did not recall” other dossier information.
He noted much of what he passed to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay,” while some stemmed from “conversation ... with friends over beers” — while the most salacious allegations may have been made in “jest.”
“Our discussions with [Danchenko] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele,” the FBI's 2018 talking points nevertheless claimed, also arguing its informant “maintains trusted relationships with individuals who are capable of reporting on the material he collected for Steele" and that he and Steele "utilized reasonably sound intelligence tradecraft.”
FBI director Christopher Wray eventually concurred in 2020 with the Trump DOJ’s conclusions that at least some of the FISA warrants against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 9817043a8b
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 18, 2022 AT 11:58 AM
Paul Plante says:
First of all, with respect to how the sane and rational people of America who are not drinkers of the highly toxic Biden KOOL-AID, said to be made from distilled toxic sludge, view the hate-filled diatribe in Philadelphia on 1 September 2022 of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., president of the Democrats and illegitimate president of the United States of America, having been appointed thus by Democrat Nancy Pelosi on 6 January 2021, because she had the votes in the “Nancy’s House” to do so, regardless of OUR Constitution, which the Democrats do not acknowledge as pertaining to them, because as everybody knows, it was written by misogynistic racist troglodytes who believed women like HILLARY Clinton should be kept barefoot and pregnant and chained to the bedpost with only enough chain to reach the kitchen stove, let us go to an article in The Hill titled “Majority of Americans view Biden’s anti-MAGA speech as divisive: poll” by Julia Manchester on 09/13/22, where we have operative reality in the United States of America expressed as follows:
A majority of voters say they view President Biden’s speech earlier this month in Philadelphia in which he said the GOP is “dominated, driven and intimidated” by MAGA Republicans as divisive, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll shared exclusively with The Hill.
end quotes
“Divisive” is actually a tame word to describe that hate-filled diatribe, and it was “divisive” because it was intended to be so, with the mid-terms only eight weeks away and the Biden white house doing everything it can to throw the election to the Democrats by demonizing and disparaging the opposition with such derogatory and insulting terms as “MAGA Republican,” “semi-fascist,” and “MAGAtard.”
Getting back to reality as it is portrayed in the Hill article, it continues as follows, to wit:
Sixty percent of respondents said Biden’s speech divided the country and held it back, while 40 percent said the speech united the nation and moved it forward.
end quotes
Who those 40 percent saying the toxic and hate-filled diatribe on 1 September 2022 by Joe Biden in Philadelphia in a stage setting from straight out of a political rally in Germany in the time of the Third Reich “united the nation and moved it forward,” actually are is unknown, but one can guess that this poll went so far as to include the inmates of insane asylums all across America, because who in their right mind could possibly think or believe that you can unite the nation and move it forward by considering more than half the people of America are “domestic enemies” of the United States Constitution?
Getting back to The Hill, we have further on that score, as follows:
Another 56 percent opposed the address, while 44 percent said they supported it.
end quotes
And that 44 percent, people, own control of the presidency, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate, and are trying to gain control of the judiciary by attacking and demonizing the present members of the United States Supreme Court who were recently denounced by Joe Biden’s executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris on Meet the Press on 11 September 2022, where she called them an “activist court,” and then told the people of America the BIDEN TOXIC GREAT BIG LIE that, “The United States Supreme Court, in the Dobbs decision, just took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the women of America, from the people of America.”
That is a GREAT BIG BIDEN TOXIC LIE, and Karmela Harris, a lawyer, should know better, because Mr. Chief Justice Burger, concurring in Roe v. Wade, stated as follows in plain and simple language that even a dull-wit like Karmela Harris should have been able to comprehend and understand, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quotes
Now, how many different ways can those fourteen simple words be interpreted?
Going back to The Hill, the story continues as follows:
The Harvard CAPS-Harris poll found that 54 percent of respondents said the address “was an example of fear-mongering,” while 46 percent said the president’s fears expressed in the speech were “justified.”
end quotes
And yes, indeed, people, it was most definitely a case of “FEAR MONGERING,” because Joe cannot defend his own record, nor can the Democrats, so they are falling back on their “SOW HATRED OF THE OPPOSITION” strategy, and eight short weeks which are racing by, we will get the opportunity to see if DEMOCRAT HATRED of the American people prevails, or will sanity and rationality prevail.
Going back to The Hill, we have yet more as follows:
“Joe Biden is facing a backlash from his speech that was viewed as divisive,” said Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey.
“While it pleased Democrats and even may have energized them, most voters saw the speech as inappropriate.
Last month, Biden also made headlines at a fundraiser when he likened the “MAGA” wing of the GOP to fascism.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said Biden’s comments were “inappropriate,” while 44 percent said they were “appropriate.”
end quotes
And there is where we are in America right now at this very moment, with this important question before us:
WILL THE 44% IN AMERICA WHO LIKE AND CHEER ON JOE BIDEN’S HATE-FILLED DIATRIBES PREVAIL OVER THE FIFTY-SIX PERCENT WHO THINK DEMOCRAT AUTOCRAT JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JUNIOR, IS TAKING OUR NATION IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-692469
Paul Plante says:
First of all, with respect to how the sane and rational people of America who are not drinkers of the highly toxic Biden KOOL-AID, said to be made from distilled toxic sludge, view the hate-filled diatribe in Philadelphia on 1 September 2022 of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., president of the Democrats and illegitimate president of the United States of America, having been appointed thus by Democrat Nancy Pelosi on 6 January 2021, because she had the votes in the “Nancy’s House” to do so, regardless of OUR Constitution, which the Democrats do not acknowledge as pertaining to them, because as everybody knows, it was written by misogynistic racist troglodytes who believed women like HILLARY Clinton should be kept barefoot and pregnant and chained to the bedpost with only enough chain to reach the kitchen stove, let us go to an article in The Hill titled “Majority of Americans view Biden’s anti-MAGA speech as divisive: poll” by Julia Manchester on 09/13/22, where we have operative reality in the United States of America expressed as follows:
A majority of voters say they view President Biden’s speech earlier this month in Philadelphia in which he said the GOP is “dominated, driven and intimidated” by MAGA Republicans as divisive, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll shared exclusively with The Hill.
end quotes
“Divisive” is actually a tame word to describe that hate-filled diatribe, and it was “divisive” because it was intended to be so, with the mid-terms only eight weeks away and the Biden white house doing everything it can to throw the election to the Democrats by demonizing and disparaging the opposition with such derogatory and insulting terms as “MAGA Republican,” “semi-fascist,” and “MAGAtard.”
Getting back to reality as it is portrayed in the Hill article, it continues as follows, to wit:
Sixty percent of respondents said Biden’s speech divided the country and held it back, while 40 percent said the speech united the nation and moved it forward.
end quotes
Who those 40 percent saying the toxic and hate-filled diatribe on 1 September 2022 by Joe Biden in Philadelphia in a stage setting from straight out of a political rally in Germany in the time of the Third Reich “united the nation and moved it forward,” actually are is unknown, but one can guess that this poll went so far as to include the inmates of insane asylums all across America, because who in their right mind could possibly think or believe that you can unite the nation and move it forward by considering more than half the people of America are “domestic enemies” of the United States Constitution?
Getting back to The Hill, we have further on that score, as follows:
Another 56 percent opposed the address, while 44 percent said they supported it.
end quotes
And that 44 percent, people, own control of the presidency, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate, and are trying to gain control of the judiciary by attacking and demonizing the present members of the United States Supreme Court who were recently denounced by Joe Biden’s executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris on Meet the Press on 11 September 2022, where she called them an “activist court,” and then told the people of America the BIDEN TOXIC GREAT BIG LIE that, “The United States Supreme Court, in the Dobbs decision, just took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the women of America, from the people of America.”
That is a GREAT BIG BIDEN TOXIC LIE, and Karmela Harris, a lawyer, should know better, because Mr. Chief Justice Burger, concurring in Roe v. Wade, stated as follows in plain and simple language that even a dull-wit like Karmela Harris should have been able to comprehend and understand, as follows:
Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.
end quotes
Now, how many different ways can those fourteen simple words be interpreted?
Going back to The Hill, the story continues as follows:
The Harvard CAPS-Harris poll found that 54 percent of respondents said the address “was an example of fear-mongering,” while 46 percent said the president’s fears expressed in the speech were “justified.”
end quotes
And yes, indeed, people, it was most definitely a case of “FEAR MONGERING,” because Joe cannot defend his own record, nor can the Democrats, so they are falling back on their “SOW HATRED OF THE OPPOSITION” strategy, and eight short weeks which are racing by, we will get the opportunity to see if DEMOCRAT HATRED of the American people prevails, or will sanity and rationality prevail.
Going back to The Hill, we have yet more as follows:
“Joe Biden is facing a backlash from his speech that was viewed as divisive,” said Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey.
“While it pleased Democrats and even may have energized them, most voters saw the speech as inappropriate.
Last month, Biden also made headlines at a fundraiser when he likened the “MAGA” wing of the GOP to fascism.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said Biden’s comments were “inappropriate,” while 44 percent said they were “appropriate.”
end quotes
And there is where we are in America right now at this very moment, with this important question before us:
WILL THE 44% IN AMERICA WHO LIKE AND CHEER ON JOE BIDEN’S HATE-FILLED DIATRIBES PREVAIL OVER THE FIFTY-SIX PERCENT WHO THINK DEMOCRAT AUTOCRAT JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JUNIOR, IS TAKING OUR NATION IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-692469
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
HuffPost
"Hillary Clinton Compares Trump To Hitler In Disturbing Interview"
Mary Papenfuss
24 SEPTEMBER 2022
In a stinging interview Friday one-time presidential candidate Hillary Clinton compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, and his political rallies to Nazi gatherings.
She zeroed in on Trump’s rally last week in Youngstown, Ohio, where members of the crowd raised a stiff-armed, one-finger QAnon salute to the former president in a gesture chillingly reminiscent of the “heil Hitler” salute.
The QAnon gesture stands for WWG1WGA, or: “Where We Go One We Go All.”
“I remember as a young student, you know, trying to figure out how people get basically brought in by Hitler."
"How did that happen?” Clinton asked during an onstage interview at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin.
“I’d watch newsreels and I’d see this guy standing up there ranting and raving, and people shouting and raising their arms."
"I thought, ‘What’s happened to these people?’” she added.
“You saw the rally in Ohio the other night,” Clinton noted.
“Trump is there ranting and raving for more than an hour, and you have these rows of young men with their arms raised."
"What is going on?”
She added: “I think it is fair to say we’re in a struggle between democracy and autocracy.”
Clinton was hardly the only one to see similarities between Trump and Hitler rallies.
Retired four-star U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey also compared Trump’s Ohio rally to a 1936 rally held by Hitler in Nuremberg, Germany.
“The crowd is similar to a Nuremberg rally 1936,” McCaffrey tweeted after the rally.
“A lawless Trump in office in [the] 2024 election would slide us into autocracy and deny our Constitutional safeguards."
"This is our greatest danger as a nation since 1860.”
This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ac3150e2d9
"Hillary Clinton Compares Trump To Hitler In Disturbing Interview"
Mary Papenfuss
24 SEPTEMBER 2022
In a stinging interview Friday one-time presidential candidate Hillary Clinton compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, and his political rallies to Nazi gatherings.
She zeroed in on Trump’s rally last week in Youngstown, Ohio, where members of the crowd raised a stiff-armed, one-finger QAnon salute to the former president in a gesture chillingly reminiscent of the “heil Hitler” salute.
The QAnon gesture stands for WWG1WGA, or: “Where We Go One We Go All.”
“I remember as a young student, you know, trying to figure out how people get basically brought in by Hitler."
"How did that happen?” Clinton asked during an onstage interview at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin.
“I’d watch newsreels and I’d see this guy standing up there ranting and raving, and people shouting and raising their arms."
"I thought, ‘What’s happened to these people?’” she added.
“You saw the rally in Ohio the other night,” Clinton noted.
“Trump is there ranting and raving for more than an hour, and you have these rows of young men with their arms raised."
"What is going on?”
She added: “I think it is fair to say we’re in a struggle between democracy and autocracy.”
Clinton was hardly the only one to see similarities between Trump and Hitler rallies.
Retired four-star U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey also compared Trump’s Ohio rally to a 1936 rally held by Hitler in Nuremberg, Germany.
“The crowd is similar to a Nuremberg rally 1936,” McCaffrey tweeted after the rally.
“A lawless Trump in office in [the] 2024 election would slide us into autocracy and deny our Constitutional safeguards."
"This is our greatest danger as a nation since 1860.”
This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ac3150e2d9
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
FOX NEWS
"Danchenko trial: Dem operative admits he lied about source of Manafort, Lewandowski info in dossier"
Brooke Singman, Jake Gibson
13 OCTOBER 2022
Longtime Democrat operative Charles Dolan testified Thursday that he lied to Igor Danchenko in 2016 when he said he had inside information from a GOP source about the resignation of Paul Manafort from the Trump campaign — information that he actually learned through open source reporting and later was used in the dossier and attributed to "an American political figure associated with Donald Trump."
Dolan testified during the trial of Danchenko, the Russian national who served as the primary sub-source for ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and his anti-Trump dossier.
Special Counsel John Durham charged Danchenko with five counts of making false statements to the FBI.
Danchenko has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During questioning, Durham’s team revealed an email from Danchenko to Dolan dated Aug. 19, 2016 in which Danchenko asked Dolan for any inside information on Manafort’s departure as Trump campaign chairman.
"I am working on a related project against Trump," Danchenko wrote.
"It is an important project for me…"
"Our goals clearly coincide."
Dolan replied on the same day, "Let me dig around on Manafort…"
"I’m pretty sure the new team wanted him out and used today’s NYT story to drive a stake in his heart."
The next day, Dolan emailed Danchenko again and wrote, "I had lunch with a GOP friend who knows the players."
Dolan went on to tell Danchenko that Corey Lewandowksi, who served as Trump’s campaign manager during the 2016 GOP presidential primaries, "hates Manafort" and following his resignation "is doing a happy dance… it is a very sharp elbows crowd."
During questioning on Thursday, though, Dolan testified that he never actually spoke to a GOP source, and admitted that he got that information from open source information — specifically cable news.
"I thought I’d embellish a bit," Dolan testified Thursday.
He added that Lewandowski "hating" Manafort was "pretty common" knowledge at the time.
Danchenko took the information included in Dolan’s email, re-worded it, and included it in his Aug. 22, 2016 report, which later was compiled into the Steele dossier.
"An American political figure associated with Donald Trump and his campaign outlined the reasons behind Manafort’s recent demise," the dossier said.
"S/he said it was true that the Ukraine corruption revelations had played a part in this but also, several senior players close to Trump had wanted Manafort out, primarily to loosen his control on strategy and policy formulation."
"Of particular importance in this regard was Manafort’s predecessor as campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who hated Manafort personally and remained close to Trump with whom he discussed the presidential campaign on a regular basis," the dossier added.
Buzzfeed News published the dossier in January 2017.
Dolan testified Thursday that when he saw it, he became concerned because he suspected Danchenko could have been involved in it due to his connections to Steele.
Dolan testified that he did not know information he provided to Danchenko was in the dossier until Durham called him in for questioning as part of his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
Dolan said Durham showed him his email side by side with the dossier, and Dolan agreed the two looked "similar."
The dossier was authored by Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through law firm Perkins Coie.
The dossier served as the basis for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant and its three renewals against Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019 said the dossier was used to justify the initial FISA warrant and its three subsequent renewals.
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee first said the dossier served as the basis for those warrants and surveillance of Page.
The Justice Department admitted in 2020 that the FISA warrants to surveil Page, when stripped of the FBI's misinformation, did not meet the necessary legal threshold and never should have been issued.
During the Danchenko trial this week, FBI supervisory counterintelligence analyst Brian Auten, Durham’s first witness, admitted that neither the FBI nor any other intelligence agency — or even Steele himself — had any corroboration for allegations included in the dossier.
"You and your colleagues took the information…and put it in the Carter Page FISA application," Durham said.
"You didn’t have corroboration from FBI databases, from other intelligence community agencies, or from Christopher Steele and it still went into a FISA application?"
"Correct," Auten testified.
Auten testified that the FBI even offered Steele $1 million in 2021 to corroborate the allegations, but testified that Steele could not do so.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 63b242bae7
"Danchenko trial: Dem operative admits he lied about source of Manafort, Lewandowski info in dossier"
Brooke Singman, Jake Gibson
13 OCTOBER 2022
Longtime Democrat operative Charles Dolan testified Thursday that he lied to Igor Danchenko in 2016 when he said he had inside information from a GOP source about the resignation of Paul Manafort from the Trump campaign — information that he actually learned through open source reporting and later was used in the dossier and attributed to "an American political figure associated with Donald Trump."
Dolan testified during the trial of Danchenko, the Russian national who served as the primary sub-source for ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and his anti-Trump dossier.
Special Counsel John Durham charged Danchenko with five counts of making false statements to the FBI.
Danchenko has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During questioning, Durham’s team revealed an email from Danchenko to Dolan dated Aug. 19, 2016 in which Danchenko asked Dolan for any inside information on Manafort’s departure as Trump campaign chairman.
"I am working on a related project against Trump," Danchenko wrote.
"It is an important project for me…"
"Our goals clearly coincide."
Dolan replied on the same day, "Let me dig around on Manafort…"
"I’m pretty sure the new team wanted him out and used today’s NYT story to drive a stake in his heart."
The next day, Dolan emailed Danchenko again and wrote, "I had lunch with a GOP friend who knows the players."
Dolan went on to tell Danchenko that Corey Lewandowksi, who served as Trump’s campaign manager during the 2016 GOP presidential primaries, "hates Manafort" and following his resignation "is doing a happy dance… it is a very sharp elbows crowd."
During questioning on Thursday, though, Dolan testified that he never actually spoke to a GOP source, and admitted that he got that information from open source information — specifically cable news.
"I thought I’d embellish a bit," Dolan testified Thursday.
He added that Lewandowski "hating" Manafort was "pretty common" knowledge at the time.
Danchenko took the information included in Dolan’s email, re-worded it, and included it in his Aug. 22, 2016 report, which later was compiled into the Steele dossier.
"An American political figure associated with Donald Trump and his campaign outlined the reasons behind Manafort’s recent demise," the dossier said.
"S/he said it was true that the Ukraine corruption revelations had played a part in this but also, several senior players close to Trump had wanted Manafort out, primarily to loosen his control on strategy and policy formulation."
"Of particular importance in this regard was Manafort’s predecessor as campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who hated Manafort personally and remained close to Trump with whom he discussed the presidential campaign on a regular basis," the dossier added.
Buzzfeed News published the dossier in January 2017.
Dolan testified Thursday that when he saw it, he became concerned because he suspected Danchenko could have been involved in it due to his connections to Steele.
Dolan testified that he did not know information he provided to Danchenko was in the dossier until Durham called him in for questioning as part of his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
Dolan said Durham showed him his email side by side with the dossier, and Dolan agreed the two looked "similar."
The dossier was authored by Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through law firm Perkins Coie.
The dossier served as the basis for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant and its three renewals against Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz in 2019 said the dossier was used to justify the initial FISA warrant and its three subsequent renewals.
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee first said the dossier served as the basis for those warrants and surveillance of Page.
The Justice Department admitted in 2020 that the FISA warrants to surveil Page, when stripped of the FBI's misinformation, did not meet the necessary legal threshold and never should have been issued.
During the Danchenko trial this week, FBI supervisory counterintelligence analyst Brian Auten, Durham’s first witness, admitted that neither the FBI nor any other intelligence agency — or even Steele himself — had any corroboration for allegations included in the dossier.
"You and your colleagues took the information…and put it in the Carter Page FISA application," Durham said.
"You didn’t have corroboration from FBI databases, from other intelligence community agencies, or from Christopher Steele and it still went into a FISA application?"
"Correct," Auten testified.
Auten testified that the FBI even offered Steele $1 million in 2021 to corroborate the allegations, but testified that Steele could not do so.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 63b242bae7
Re: THE PRECIOUS AND SPECIAL HILLARY CLINTON
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Durham trial: Mueller declined to investigate Clinton ally linked to Danchenko"
Jerry Dunleavy
14 OCTOBER 2022
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — A current FBI special agent and a former bureau analyst who both served on Robert Mueller’s team testified that the special counsel’s office declined to investigate and never interviewed Charles Dolan, the Clinton-allied business associate of the main source for Christopher Steele, despite their urging.
Supervisory special agent Amy Anderson and former FBI intelligence analyst Brittany Hertzog both testified Friday that, as members of Mueller’s team who were specifically tasked with scrutinizing the allegations within the Trump dossier, they believed the FBI should interview and further investigate Dolan, a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, partly due to his business connections with Igor Danchenko, a Russian national whom the bureau had made a paid informant.
Danchenko has been charged by special counsel John Durham with lying to the FBI about his sourcing for the Democratic-funded dossier.
The Mueller team members also testified that they were concerned about Dolan’s links to Danchenko’s friend Olga Galkina, who had been identified as a sub-source for Danchenko related to the dossier, although she denies being such a source.
Danchenko introduced Dolan and Galkina in 2016.
Dolan had spent many years, including 2016, doing business in Russia and with the Russian government.
Anderson and Hertzog said they were also concerned about Dolan’s potential dossier links combined with the fact that he had a history of working closely with Russian officials, most notably Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Despite Dolan’s potential dossier links through Danchenko and Galkina, as well as his associations with Russian officials, Anderson and Hertzog said their efforts to investigate Dolan were shut down.
Anderson, a special agent with the FBI since 2012 who is currently an FBI assistant legal attache in Ottawa, said she worked on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team and then the subsequent Mueller team from April 2017 to January 2018.
She said her main career focus has been on Russian counterintelligence and that she was “working the dossier in particular” during her time on the Mueller investigation.
She said she became aware of Danchenko through his handling agent, Kevin Helson, and FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten, who had interviewed the Steele source in January 2017, and said she became aware of Galkina through database checks by Hertzog.
“I wanted to look into him,” Anderson said of Dolan upon learning of his connections to Danchenko and Galkina.
She said Auten and Hertzog were in agreement.
After meeting with and interviewing Galkina in Cyprus in August 2017, Anderson said she spoke with Auten and prepared an electronic communication in a request to open an investigation into Dolan.
“It sat for approximately three to four weeks,” Anderson testified during questioning, adding that she was subsequently told it would not be opened by her superior at the time, supervisory special agent Joe Nelson.
Anderson said she deleted her memo requesting a Dolan investigation from the FBI’s Sentinel system after she was told such an inquiry would not be happening.
The FBI agent also described the meeting with Galkina in Cyprus, claiming that Danchenko’s friend “seemed mostly forthcoming” but that “she was hesitant in telling us about Mr. Dolan” and that “she did not want to speak about him.”
During a car ride toward the end of the Cyprus trip, Anderson said she asked Galkina directly about whether Dolan was linked to the dossier and described Galkina’s response: “She was slightly hesitant."
"… She asked me to remove my sunglasses and to look me directly in the eye” before talking about Dolan.
The defense team objected to this line of questioning and Judge Anthony Trenga stopped it from going further.
Anderson said an investigation into Dolan could have yielded important information about the dossier and would have allowed the FBI to conduct interviews and issue subpoenas.
During questioning by defense lawyer Danny Onorato, Anderson acknowledged that Danchenko brokered the FBI’s meeting with Galkina and that “some” of the information she put in her proposed investigation launch document had come from Danchenko.
Hertzog, a former Russian counterintelligence analyst who now works for NASDAQ, joined the Mueller team around July 2017 at Auten’s request and also said Auten and Anderson shared her concerns about Dolan but that there was disagreement within the Mueller team and some special counsel members did not want to investigate Dolan.
Hertzog said her primary focus had been on Galkina, and she testified that she was concerned about the possible national security threat posed by Dolan’s connections to alleged sources and sub-sources for the dossier.
The former FBI analyst said she put together a report on Galkina that referenced Dolan and that she filed the electronic communication to the FBI’s Sentinel system.
Hertzog said she “serialized” it in three case files in an effort to get it reviewed by the Washington Field Office, FBI Headquarters, and the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.
Hertzog testified that she had been instructed not to take further action on the Dolan-Danchenko link but that she wanted higher-ups to see the Galkina information because of what she saw as an important Dolan connection.
On Thursday, Dolan testified that he fabricated the sourcing behind a claim about Trump’s 2016 campaign that ended up in Steele’s discredited dossier.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... cc300c1ce6
"Durham trial: Mueller declined to investigate Clinton ally linked to Danchenko"
Jerry Dunleavy
14 OCTOBER 2022
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia — A current FBI special agent and a former bureau analyst who both served on Robert Mueller’s team testified that the special counsel’s office declined to investigate and never interviewed Charles Dolan, the Clinton-allied business associate of the main source for Christopher Steele, despite their urging.
Supervisory special agent Amy Anderson and former FBI intelligence analyst Brittany Hertzog both testified Friday that, as members of Mueller’s team who were specifically tasked with scrutinizing the allegations within the Trump dossier, they believed the FBI should interview and further investigate Dolan, a longtime ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, partly due to his business connections with Igor Danchenko, a Russian national whom the bureau had made a paid informant.
Danchenko has been charged by special counsel John Durham with lying to the FBI about his sourcing for the Democratic-funded dossier.
The Mueller team members also testified that they were concerned about Dolan’s links to Danchenko’s friend Olga Galkina, who had been identified as a sub-source for Danchenko related to the dossier, although she denies being such a source.
Danchenko introduced Dolan and Galkina in 2016.
Dolan had spent many years, including 2016, doing business in Russia and with the Russian government.
Anderson and Hertzog said they were also concerned about Dolan’s potential dossier links combined with the fact that he had a history of working closely with Russian officials, most notably Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Despite Dolan’s potential dossier links through Danchenko and Galkina, as well as his associations with Russian officials, Anderson and Hertzog said their efforts to investigate Dolan were shut down.
Anderson, a special agent with the FBI since 2012 who is currently an FBI assistant legal attache in Ottawa, said she worked on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team and then the subsequent Mueller team from April 2017 to January 2018.
She said her main career focus has been on Russian counterintelligence and that she was “working the dossier in particular” during her time on the Mueller investigation.
She said she became aware of Danchenko through his handling agent, Kevin Helson, and FBI supervisory intelligence analyst Brian Auten, who had interviewed the Steele source in January 2017, and said she became aware of Galkina through database checks by Hertzog.
“I wanted to look into him,” Anderson said of Dolan upon learning of his connections to Danchenko and Galkina.
She said Auten and Hertzog were in agreement.
After meeting with and interviewing Galkina in Cyprus in August 2017, Anderson said she spoke with Auten and prepared an electronic communication in a request to open an investigation into Dolan.
“It sat for approximately three to four weeks,” Anderson testified during questioning, adding that she was subsequently told it would not be opened by her superior at the time, supervisory special agent Joe Nelson.
Anderson said she deleted her memo requesting a Dolan investigation from the FBI’s Sentinel system after she was told such an inquiry would not be happening.
The FBI agent also described the meeting with Galkina in Cyprus, claiming that Danchenko’s friend “seemed mostly forthcoming” but that “she was hesitant in telling us about Mr. Dolan” and that “she did not want to speak about him.”
During a car ride toward the end of the Cyprus trip, Anderson said she asked Galkina directly about whether Dolan was linked to the dossier and described Galkina’s response: “She was slightly hesitant."
"… She asked me to remove my sunglasses and to look me directly in the eye” before talking about Dolan.
The defense team objected to this line of questioning and Judge Anthony Trenga stopped it from going further.
Anderson said an investigation into Dolan could have yielded important information about the dossier and would have allowed the FBI to conduct interviews and issue subpoenas.
During questioning by defense lawyer Danny Onorato, Anderson acknowledged that Danchenko brokered the FBI’s meeting with Galkina and that “some” of the information she put in her proposed investigation launch document had come from Danchenko.
Hertzog, a former Russian counterintelligence analyst who now works for NASDAQ, joined the Mueller team around July 2017 at Auten’s request and also said Auten and Anderson shared her concerns about Dolan but that there was disagreement within the Mueller team and some special counsel members did not want to investigate Dolan.
Hertzog said her primary focus had been on Galkina, and she testified that she was concerned about the possible national security threat posed by Dolan’s connections to alleged sources and sub-sources for the dossier.
The former FBI analyst said she put together a report on Galkina that referenced Dolan and that she filed the electronic communication to the FBI’s Sentinel system.
Hertzog said she “serialized” it in three case files in an effort to get it reviewed by the Washington Field Office, FBI Headquarters, and the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.
Hertzog testified that she had been instructed not to take further action on the Dolan-Danchenko link but that she wanted higher-ups to see the Galkina information because of what she saw as an important Dolan connection.
On Thursday, Dolan testified that he fabricated the sourcing behind a claim about Trump’s 2016 campaign that ended up in Steele’s discredited dossier.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... cc300c1ce6