Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
this cabal has enough conflict of interest to render this investigation suspect.
IMO it was suspect from the GET GO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Rosenstein appears to be part of this. He's trying to protect them by bullshitting congress. I think they (congress critters) know he's lying.
it appears that JD and FBI is involved in obstruction of justice in providing info to Congressional committee in oversight the agency & the investigation on the dossier.
I was surprised with how little Rosen wanted to answer them they didn't hold his ass in contempt of congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The2Dogs
What we need is a special council of individuals that have no connection to the Justice Department to do a full investigation of the Justice Department including the FBI.
Made up of an even # of liberals, conservatives and independents!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The2Dogs
What we need is a special council of individuals that have no connection to the Justice Department to do a full investigation of the Justice Department including the FBI.
More like ONLY Republicans are ever guilty of lying.
I took a look to see if there were any pictures of the married whore the FBI criminal was fucking and she looked like a CL wannabe whore. Her po old cuckold hubbyhad to jput a hoody over his head to hide the shame he felt for marrying the whore in the first place.
"Daddy? Is mommy really a whore?" was overheard coming from his young son.
"You know she is a FBI lawyer, son. It goes with the job" his father retorted.
"Besides, we are Hillary supporters so that is our lot in life." his father continued.
"Daddy, are you a whore too?" his son asked his father.
"Son, I do not work for the government, I work for a non-profit" his father replied.
"are you going to kick his ass, Daddy?" his son questioned him in a mock serious tone.
"No son, violence isn't the answeer" his dad stated with feigned authority.
"oh, so you are a chicken shit pussy, huh, Dad?" his son cracked as he smiled knowingly.
"Don't worry Dad, you can always get a job with the DNC......"
I took a look to see if there were any pictures of the married whore the FBI criminal was fucking and she looked like a CL wannabe whore. Her po old cuckold hubbyhad to jput a hoody over his head to hide the shame he felt for marrying the whore in the first place.
"Daddy? Is mommy really a whore?" was overheard coming from his young son.
"You know she is a FBI lawyer, son. It goes with the job" his father retorted.
"Besides, we are Hillary supporters so that is our lot in life." his father continued.
"Daddy, are you a whore too?" his son asked his father.
"Son, I do not work for the government, I work for a non-profit" his father replied.
"are you going to kick his ass, Daddy?" his son questioned him in a mock serious tone.
"No son, violence isn't the answeer" his dad stated with feigned authority.
"oh, so you are a chicken shit pussy, huh, Dad?" his son cracked as he smiled knowingly.
"Don't worry Dad, you can always get a job with the DNC......"
LOL, then he would be working for Hillery, or has she sold the DNC back to themselves now that she lost the election?
It’s July 4, 2016. Although it is Independence Day, a national holiday, an unusual meeting is taking place inside the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building in Washington, D.C. FBI Director, James Comey, is meeting with one of his lead investigators, Peter Strzok, concerning the Clinton email case. Unbeknownst to the two men is the presence of a third individual — a fly on the wall, who is strategically positioned within earshot of their conversation and was able to provide the following transcript of the clandestine meeting.
James Comey: Thanks, Peter, for coming to the office on your day off. I’m sorry to impose on you, but there is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed. It’s about the ill-advised meeting that Attorney General Lynch had last week with Bill Clinton at a Phoenix airport. Needless to say, the shit hit the fan.
Peter Strzok: Jimmy, what the hell was she thinking?
James Comey: She wasn’t. As soon as she found out that her meeting with Bill had become headline news, she had kittens. She was frantic and telephoned me immediately. Apparently, Bill told her privately that he wanted her to put an end to our investigation. He demanded that Lynch exonerate his wife of all charges and do so immediately if she wanted to keep her job in the forthcoming Clinton administration. Bill told her that Hillary has a campaign to run and she doesn’t need a cloud hanging over her head.
Peter Strzok: So why doesn’t Lynch handle it herself? Why does she need you?
James Comey: Because, after meeting privately with the ex-president, she has zero credibility. Lynch would be laughed out of town if she attempted to exonerate Hillary at this point and she knows it. So she wants me to do it. Therefore, I’m on the bubble.
Peter Strzok: I understand your dilemma. But it shouldn’t be that much of a problem. Two months ago, I reviewed the draft you prepared of the FBI’s recommendation to exonerate Hillary Clinton of all allegations. Overall, I thought you did a fine job but I suggested a few changes to the document. I sent you an email with the edits I recommended.
James Comey: Peter, that’s exactly what I want to discuss with you because I will be exonerating Clinton tomorrow in a nationally televised announcement. The draft exoneration document that you marked up will be the basis of my presentation.
Peter Strzok: Are you comfortable doing this?
James Comey: Not really. But I’m the one with the Boy Scout reputation and, therefore, I stand the best chance of convincing the public. I was hoping Lynch would make the exoneration statement, but she can’t after her harebrained meeting with Bill Clinton. I know I will be bypassing normal DOJ procedures when I do so. But it’s incumbent on me to do it. The time has come to end this charade. I hope I can pull this off with a straight face.
Peter Strzok: I believe you can.
James Comey: Considering the mountains of damning evidence found by our team of investigators, I will have to walk a tightrope as I deliver my bullshit presentation. I want it to sound like the FBI did a thorough investigation but the evidence we found doesn’t reach the threshold that would warrant criminal charges being brought against Clinton.
Peter Strzok: For what it’s worth, we have one big factor working in our favor. Tomorrow, you as Director of the FBI will be meeting the public’s low expectations. Other than crazy conspiracy theorists, the general public doesn’t expect Clinton to be charged with any crimes. In fact, they would be shocked if they she were. Considering the multitude of Clinton scandals over the years and the fact that they were never indicted for anything in the past, it is natural for the public to expect the same outcome in this case. Your exoneration of Clinton tomorrow would simply be par for the course as far as the Clintons are concerned. Only politically tone-deaf Clinton haters would expect the U.S. Department of Justice in the Obama administration to indict its own party’s front-running presidential candidate. We didn’t indict Lois Lerner who pleaded the Fifth when she was guilty as hell and we sure aren’t going to indict the next president of the United States.
Article Continues Below
James Comey: Thanks for the encouraging words. Your perspective puts me at ease somewhat, but I still have to contend with pain-in-the-ass lawyers who will take to the airwaves criticizing me for legal malpractice. I am particularly concerned with one of the edits you suggested — changing the words “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”
Peter Strzok: Obviously, you had your lawyer’s hat on when you wrote those words. When I read the draft, the words “grossly negligent” jumped off the page because they are the exact words used in subsection 793(f) of the Espionage Act. It would be poor form, not to mention a major faux pas, to publicly exonerate someone while using the precise statutory language, “grossly negligent,” that would be applied if a criminal indictment were handed down instead. So, I changed the term to “extremely careless” instead. Although it’s a change without any real difference, it is nuanced enough, in my opinion, to avoid the statutory language problem. Extremely careless also softens the rather harsh and legally inexcusable behavior of being “grossly negligent.”
James Comey: Brilliant. You’re a lifesaver. And thank you for catching something else. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote it is “reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account.” Changing the words from “reasonably likely” to “possible” sounds a lot less damaging.
Peter Strzok: Yeah, Jimmy, it is difficult giving her a pass, but we had to do what we had to do. I can tell you the hundred-plus agents, who worked on the case, will be very unhappy when you exonerate her. They found an avalanche of evidence that should put her away. They are particularly upset with Clinton’s willful destruction of subpoenaed evidence. When I interviewed Clinton’s associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, I had to hold my nose because I knew they were lying through their teeth. When I and others interviewed Hillary on Saturday, we made sure we didn’t record the interrogation. And I use the term “interrogation” loosely, if you know what I mean. We didn’t even bother putting her under oath.
James Comey: Peter, you’re just doing your job. I’m proud to have dedicated law enforcement professionals like you on my staff. The same goes for the rank-and-file agents who worked the case. I hope they will forgive me for rendering the fruits of their hard work unrecognizable and drawing a conclusion that is unsupported by mounds of incriminating evidence they uncovered. Fortunately, our agents know that there is a political component to their work and that it is necessary at times to gloss over inconvenient facts. Like us, they understand that certain powerful politicians must be afforded a wide degree of latitude in the application of the law. In other words, hard evidence alone is insufficient when dealing with the politicians who run our government. The concept of equal justice under the law is malleable in this regard. Hence, I trust that FBI agents, in their professional wisdom, will abide the delicate elasticity we are applying to the Clinton matter.
Peter Strzok: They are fully aware that there is a political dimension to their job and are trained accordingly. The good news is that Clinton appears to be a shoo-in to win the election. As the campaign heats up, your exoneration of her will quickly fade into the background. When she takes office next January, this whole affair will become a distant memory. Hopefully, she will remember the service we rendered to get her into the Oval Office.
James Comey: Let’s not be too hasty. It is possible that this upstart, Donald Trump, could pull off an upset, although it is very unlikely.
Peter Strzok: For the sake of our country, let’s hope that doesn’t happen. The guy is a certified loose cannon. If, by some outside chance, the nut job wins the election, we will have to stop him before he destroys the nation.
James Comey: We’ll deal with that ugly gorilla, if and when he arrives at our doorstep. Right now, I need to focus on my presentation tomorrow. Thanks for helping me out with this delicate matter. Enjoy what remains of the holiday and stay safe.
Peter Strzok: Thank you, boss. All the best with your presentation tomorrow.
Peter Strzok exits the room and the Hoover Building, leaving Comey alone to ponder his exoneration speech.
As the fly on the wall buzzes off, he’s confused. He remembers flying past images of a blindfolded lady holding a scale. He is puzzled how the conversation he just heard squares with the motto “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” emblazoned on the FBI seal. Even though he is a lowly insect, he knows something isn’t right.
It always seems to be the leftists that are at the root of the corruption. Not just the corruption of their actions but the corruption of our government.
However, within this brutally obvious outline there’s a name missing. That name is the FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap:
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations.
FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn’t (according to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*
I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail. Again, notice how Comey doesn’t use Priestap’s actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn’t anticipate it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight:
Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance policy”.
REMINDER – FBI Agent Strzok to FBI Attorney Page:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th that the reason he didn’t inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight” was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.
Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn’t do it.
Than again, Comey’s blame-casting there is really called creating a “fall guy”. FBI Director James Comey is ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see Comey was creating his own exit from getting ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of President Donald Trump. In essence, Bill Priestap is James Comey’s shield from liability.
But more curiously for current discussion, there has been NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any of the recent revelations, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the “Russian Dosssier”.
Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying documents that were used for both FISA applications (June/July and Sept/Oct).
Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn’t happen. Heck, James Comey’s March testimony in that regard is also evidence of Priestap’s importance.
In addition, when Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates testified (with James Clapper), she too spoke of the importance of Bill Priestap as her liaison and contact within the FBI on the counterintelligence operation. [Yates never mentioned Peter Strzok – not once.] Even though it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who interviewed Michael Flynn on January 24th, [link] Sally Yates never mentioned him. EVER.
However Deputy AG Sally Yates did talk about Bill Priestap during her testimony.
Yates testified she and Bill Priestap traveled together, Jan 26th, to the White House to inform Don McGhan (WH Counsel) of Michael Flynn “misleading statements” (based on Pence media reports and Flynn prior ambush interview Jan 24th).
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to White House General Counsel Don McGahn “so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.”
So we all can see that Bill Priestap is a central figure. FBI Director James Comey defers to him; Acting Attorney General Sally Yates relied on him; FBI Special Agent in Counterintelligence Peter Strzok reports to him; Yet there’s absolutely no mention of Bill Priestap in any of the explosive investigative story-lines in the past two weeks.
Why?
Bill Priestap is the FBI Director of Counterintelligence. There’s no way he hasn’t been caught inside the investigative net.
Bill Priestap’s boss, Andrew McCabe has been caught. Bill Priestap’s subordinate, Peter Strzok, has most certainly been caught. And in March 20th 2017 FBI Director Comey pushed Priestap directly in front of the congressional oversight bus.
My hunch is either Bill Priestap is going to be the attempted fall-guy for the entire scheme. -OR- Bill Priestap saw the bus coming and is assisting the swamp-draining DC investigators:
On the home-front: FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap is married to Sabina Menshell a self-employed “consultant” with a history of donations to Democrat candidates, specifically to Hillary Clinton.
Bill’s wife Sabina comes from a Goldman Sach’s connected family, which must be why Bill and Sabina can afford to live in a $3.2 million home in Washington DC.
Would be a little difficult to afford a $3,000,000.00 mortgage on a G-Man’s payroll.
I took a look to see if there were any pictures of the married whore the FBI criminal was fucking and she looked like a CL wannabe whore. Her po old cuckold hubbyhad to jput a hoody over his head to hide the shame he felt for marrying the whore in the first place.
Strzok is the one who's married. he definitely will have marital issues with his SO.
Billionaire George Soros’ oldest son in nasty divorce
By Julia Marsh May 12, 2014
Billionaire George Soros’ eldest son, Robert, not only followed in his father’s financier footsteps, holding a top post at the family investment fund, he also inherited his dad’s famous problems with women.
The 50-year-old scion quietly filed for divorce from his wife of 22 years in Manhattan Supreme Court last week, The Post can exclusively report.
Robert, president and deputy chairman of the $28 billion Soros Fund Management, married photographer and filmmaker Melissa Robin Schiff at Temple Emanu-El in New York in 1992.
Next we can talk about John Kerry's daughters husband, fuckers!
