Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI

[98valk]

https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/evidence-suggests-a-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-the-fbi/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons

Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.

As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.” That prosecutor, Joseph ­diGenova, believes Trump was correct when he claimed Obama aides wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.

But, thankfully, the disgraceful episode won’t be washed away, thanks to a handful of congressional Republicans, led by California Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After he accused the FBI of stonewalling in turning over records, the bureau relented, at least partially.

The result was clear evidence of bias against Trump by officials charged with investigating him and Clinton. Those same agents appear to have acted on that bias to tilt the election to Clinton.
see also
GOP: Making memo public will prove Obama spied on Trump

In one text message, an agent suggests that Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew while the investigation was still going on that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.

How could she know unless the fix was in?

All roads in the explosive developments lead to James Comey, whose Boy Scout image belied a sinister belief that he, like his infamous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, was above the law.

These and other elements combine to make a toxic brew that smells to high heaven, but most Americans don’t know much about it. Mainstream media coverage has been sparse and dismissive and there’s a blackout from the same Democrats obsessed with Russia, Russia, Russia.


Yet each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.

If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.

[Ken aka Oil Burner]

I'd bet that all of that is true, plus a lot more.

I'd also bet that nobody will ever be prosecuted for any of it. I hope they prove me wrong.

[baldo]

LOL...the timing of this release couldn't be any more amusing...

Distraction anyone?

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?   

[Gavin_Sons]

LOL...the timing of this release couldn't be any more amusing...

Distraction anyone?

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?   

Not me, he is just saying what the Dems have coached him to say. Part of his plea deal

[Serk]

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?   

I'll be sure to DVR it, and watch it right after I watch The Academy Awards.

[RP#62]

Timing is everything, like moving the testimony to coincide with the president's meeting with North Korea.  I can hardly wait to hear what a guy with an ax to grind, who's been convicted of lying to congress has to say to congress.

-RP

[Psychotic Bovine]

LOL...the timing of this release couldn't be any more amusing...

Distraction anyone?

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps6YEbSTUkE

[Jess from VA]

LOL...the timing of this release couldn't be any more amusing...

Distraction anyone?

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps6YEbSTUkE

 

Lawyers already have a bad reputation. (much of it deserved)

Regardless of how this happens, I am very unhappy to see a man's long serving attorney testifying against that man in a house of Congress (or anywhere).  President or pauper.  

Death to socialism (and it's never-ending circus of lies, deceit, and propaganda, all in the name of self interest and political power).  

[F6Dave]

Lawyers already have a bad reputation. (much of it deserved)

Regardless of how this happens, I am very unhappy to see a man's long serving attorney testifying that man in a house of Congress (or anywhere).  President or pauper. 

Death to socialism (and it's never-ending circus of lies, deceit, and propaganda, all in the name of self interest and political power). 

Agreed.  An attorney testifying against his own client sets a precedent that should scare anyone.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Lawyers already have a bad reputation. (much of it deserved)

Regardless of how this happens, I am very unhappy to see a man's long serving attorney testifying that man in a house of Congress (or anywhere).  President or pauper. 

Death to socialism (and it's never-ending circus of lies, deceit, and propaganda, all in the name of self interest and political power). 

Agreed.  An attorney testifying against his own client sets a precedent that should scare anyone.

Maybe if he actually did lawyer work instead of his “fixer” that would have more weight. I am no lawyer, but I believe the attorney/client privilege goes away when in the commission of breaking the law.

[Oss]

Agree
The attorney has no balls
A disgrace to all members of the bar
As to the FBI.  NO surprise that the top is fetid. Sad for the many good.agents

[..]

Questions were also limited and had to be approved before hand by the Democrat chair.

[Jess from VA]

In criminal matters, I only ever represented two (completely) innocent men. (both acquitted)

In every other case, I insisted they tell me the whole unvarnished truth (and this often included criminal activity beyond the current charges, though not ongoing criminal activity).  This mostly worked (but not always).  Then, I did everything within the bounds of my oath and ethics (and right up to the edges too) to get them off, or more often the charges reduced and/or sentence minimized.  Just exactly what any man here would expect if he needed a lawyer for his own defense (and exactly what I would expect if I needed a lawyer).

At no time in 30 years of civilian or military or civil service legal employment did I ever give any evidence against a client that I learned under the attorney-client privilege.  Indeed, the privilege does not arise in every situation or conversation one might have with family, friends, acquaintances, or strangers, but I never betrayed a trust given in any of those many communications either.  

Once while overses, when the privilege did not exist, I did report a strong suspicion (not out of the man's mouth as an admission... just my suspicion) that a fellow service member was gay and trying to adopt a 10-11yo boy for his own recreational pleasure (or true love) to the appropriate authority (OSI station chief), and my suspicion was confirmed by independent instigation, and the boy was removed from his influence, no adoption took place, and he was administratively separated from the military (but with no criminal case of any kind).  That was ongoing criminal activity and therefore exempt from attorney client privilege under law anyway (though the privilege did not attach in that case).  And I still wrung my hands, and re-read my professional responsibility ethics carefully, before I went forward with my report of suspicion.  It was the right thing to do, and I'm glad I did.  And it is the only exception to strict confidentiality I can ever remember.

And lots of attorney work is fixer work, and always has been.  Would you rather have your attorney fix your problem before it ever goes to trial (within lawful ethical requirements), or only defend you at your trial (civil or criminal)?  

[J.Mencalice]

https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/evidence-suggests-a-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-the-fbi/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site+buttons&utm_campaign=site+buttons

Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.

As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.” That prosecutor, Joseph ­diGenova, believes Trump was correct when he claimed Obama aides wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.

But, thankfully, the disgraceful episode won’t be washed away, thanks to a handful of congressional Republicans, led by California Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After he accused the FBI of stonewalling in turning over records, the bureau relented, at least partially.

The result was clear evidence of bias against Trump by officials charged with investigating him and Clinton. Those same agents appear to have acted on that bias to tilt the election to Clinton.
see also
GOP: Making memo public will prove Obama spied on Trump

In one text message, an agent suggests that Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew while the investigation was still going on that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.

How could she know unless the fix was in?

All roads in the explosive developments lead to James Comey, whose Boy Scout image belied a sinister belief that he, like his infamous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, was above the law.

These and other elements combine to make a toxic brew that smells to high heaven, but most Americans don’t know much about it. Mainstream media coverage has been sparse and dismissive and there’s a blackout from the same Democrats obsessed with Russia, Russia, Russia.


Yet each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.

If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.

Rep. Nunes is no longer the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  That position is now held by Rep. Schiff.
Nunes is merely a minority member and wields no more influence than any other member of that committee.
The New York Post story is over a year old; something tells me that newspaper now lies at the bottom of birdcages everywhere or has been recycled.

[Leathel]

LOL...the timing of this release couldn't be any more amusing...

Distraction anyone?

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?   

That article is over a year old..... re-released by some trying to smoke screen current news

[The emperor has no clothes]

LOL...the timing of this release couldn't be any more amusing...

Distraction anyone?

Who's planning to watch Cohen's testimony today?   

That article is over a year old..... re-released by some trying to smoke screen current news

It happens a lot here. 

[f6john]

Our political discourse here is like trying to keep up with a hand ball game.

[gordonv]

In criminal matters, I only ever represented two (completely) innocent men. (both acquitted)

<snip>

And lots of attorney work is fixer work, and always has been.  Would you rather have your attorney fix your problem before it ever goes to trial (within lawful ethical requirements), or only defend you at your trial (civil or criminal)?  

Very good for you, as you said, I would expect the same from you too.

But how about when your client throws you under the bus, and then gets in that bus and drives it over you repeatedly?

Would your loyalty still be with that client?

[Jess from VA]

In criminal matters, I only ever represented two (completely) innocent men. (both acquitted)

<snip>

And lots of attorney work is fixer work, and always has been.  Would you rather have your attorney fix your problem before it ever goes to trial (within lawful ethical requirements), or only defend you at your trial (civil or criminal)?  

Very good for you, as you said, I would expect the same from you too.

But how about when your client throws you under the bus, and then gets in that bus and drives it over you repeatedly?

Would your loyalty still be with that client?

Do you mean literally or figuratively?

If a current client assaulted me (and that happens more than you might think.  People who like to punch other people often take bad news from their lawyer with the predictable result; thus the .45 Colt auto in my desk drawer), the rules of professional responsibility (ethics) would allow me to report it and bear witness against him for the assault, and allow me to withdraw from representing him (he probably wouldn't want me for his lawyer anyway after he assaulted me, because he would think I might not try very hard for him).  BUT, I still couldn't reveal any confidences he disclosed to me on the other matter he hired me for (unless HE brought them up as an issue first).  When called to the stand in his assault (of me) trial, and they ask why it happened, I just say he didn't like my advice.  

If a former client assaulted me, it would be the same thing, except I would not have to ask to withdraw as his counsel, as there's no case to withdraw from.

If a client throws you under the bus figuratively by filing a professional grievance against you with the Bar Association or makes a criminal or civil charge against you, you are entitled to defend yourself vigorously, but you must still make every effort to not reveal any previous confidences he made to you.  In some cases, this can become a very tricky road to navigate, and in some cases you can even ask your State Bar ethics division for an advisory opinion.  

If a client literally throws me under a bus and drives over me repeatedly, they are free to use my body any way they choose to prosecute the murdering bastard.  Use of my cadaver can never be an ethics violation.  

When I was defense counsel for all USAF in Turkey (three bases and 17 operating locations), a fellow JAG Capt defense counsel in Rhein Main AB Germany (our European Judiciary headquarters) was seriously stabbed by a junior enlisted man in his office (because he didn't like his advice).  A general court martial with jury was underway in an adjoining courtroom, being defended by our European USAF JAG defense boss, a Lt Col.  Col Pereira, a former Jolly Green (big chopper) pilot (who was shot down and took a bullet in Vietnam and could no longer fly, so he went to school and became a military lawyer), hearing a scream, stood and charged from the defense table through a locked door and disarmed the knife wielding enlisted man before he could finish the Capt off, sustaining wounds of his own.  Already awarded the silver star and purple heart for earlier RVN service, he was awarded the Airman's Medal (for saving a life).

Understandably Lt Col Pereira was a beloved boss of all of us Jr defense counsel in Europe (and many others).  I have a group picture of all of us on my wall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pereira_Castillo

This is not presented to blow my own horn.  Only to answer your questions, and to point out that aside from essential competence, client confidentiality is the cornerstone of the entire legal profession.  In the field of criminal law, you have the weight (and budget) of the entire government, police, forensics, grand jury, and prosecution against you, and only the best lawyer you can afford for you.  If you can't trust your lawyer, what can you do?

And to condemn Cohen for the low life that he is.  With his own felony conviction and criminal sentence, he will be disbarred from the practice of law (probably forever), so serving the rat bastard democrats (and himself) by violating client confidentiality (and probably further lying) can do no additional harm to his legal career. (And if they can prove he lied to Congress again, he can be prosecuted and sentenced again.)

[gordonv]

My thought was on Cohen and Trump. I'm not following it much, but felt the minute Trump turned on him, then there would be nothing binding Cohen to keep quite. But your above explanation makes good sense. Not much difference than the confessional with a priest.

Thank you for that.

And yes, I meant figuratively under the bus.

[Jess from VA]

My thought was on Cohen and Trump. I'm not following it much, but felt the minute Trump turned on him, then there would be nothing binding Cohen to keep quite. But your above explanation makes good sense. Not much difference than the confessional with a priest.

Thank you for that.

And yes, I meant figuratively under the bus.

Yes it is very similar, although we lack the ability to grant forgiveness of sin. 

Indeed, both of us would be out a good deal of business and money without sin. 

[Alberta Patriot]

I may have posted this 36 min. video before sometime. Dan Bongino lays out the complete timeline of the "Hillary"/"DNC"/"Deep State" Collusion to obtain FISA Warrants to spy on the Trump Team. All the FBI/DOJ Perps with their signatures on the warrant applications knew very well they were using a phoney "Russian" Dossier paid for by Hillary. They must be crapping their 'Depends' right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

[¿spoom]

I may have posted this 36 min. video before sometime. Dan Bongino lays out the complete timeline of the "Hillary"/"DNC"/"Deep State" Collusion to obtain FISA Warrants to spy on the Trump Team. All the FBI/DOJ Perps with their signatures on the warrant applications knew very well they were using a phoney "Russian" Dossier paid for by Hillary. They must be crapping their 'Depends' right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

Wonder if their eyes look as bad as Cohen's, who looks like he's been unable to sleep while worrying if he'd commit suicide in his sleep. The trouble with the FBI is the number of loyal (to Hillary) who know they did wrong, but don't want to go to jail or worse, so they stay loyal. If Congress was using the same chipping jammer & prybar coupled with promises of leniency or better as we're seeing in the Mueller investigation, I suspect Hillary would be openly shooting people.
Even with Cohen, they arejust going to use him to suggest people they should talk to next, just like the days of Torquemada. "That looks really painful. Isn't their someone else who you would rather have take your place?".

[Alberta Patriot]

Every time some left wing government creates a new bureau resembling the 'Bureau of Sweet F#*k All'...eventually you vote out that government party in power, but you don't get rid of that building full of bureaucrats carefully selected to do the bidding of that former administration. The Deep State is Forever unfortunately. 

[Jess from VA]

Every time some left wing government creates a new bureau resembling the 'Bureau of Sweet F#*k All'...eventually you vote out that government party in power, but you don't get rid of that building full of bureaucrats carefully selected to do the bidding of that former administration. The Deep State is Forever unfortunately.  

Having spent 18 years a block behind the Whitehouse in a Department headquarters, your observation is a very accurate one.  They change all (or most) of the Executive Department heads with each election, but all the tens of thousands civil servant (and SES - Senior Executive Service) are career employees, and they hang around forever.  

My department in Veterans Affairs had once had a rule that you couldn't even work there if you weren't a veteran (an extremely good rule).  But long before I started, they had to can that rule as they couldn't get enough qualified applicants.  I was very unhappy to discover that my appeals division within VA had a large number of card carrying leftists (young and old, but mostly young) who did their best to bend the laws and rules to their philosophy whenever possible.  One of them had been a clerk for the Ruth Bader Ginsburg, where her philosophy was sharpened to a fine point.

The best analogy of this (always increasing in size) government employment system, is like metastatic cancer.      

[Alberta Patriot]

Every Administration...pick a country, any country...is Stage 1, 2, 3 or 4 Cancer depending how long that Bureau of "SFA" has been in operation...prime example the infamous job killing 'EPA Monster'...stage 4.

[carolinarider09]

The British had a TV series on the 80's (Yes Minister) that basically said, it does not matter who is elected by the people, we, the Civil Service, actually run the government. 

This is becoming more and more true for us as well.  Entrenched bureaucrats, serving lifetime terms who control most of the activities of the Federal and even state governments.

[shortleg]

  Has Mr Schiff come out with all his proof yet?
He has been talking about it for a while now.