-snip-
The FBI in 2016 could not know without starting an investigation to what extend the Russian had managed to infiltrate the Trump Campaign. Also, Papadopoulos remained with the Trump Campaign...
With one phrase yesterday -- that Bill Barnett was "confusing the nature of the investigation" in his recent interview with Jeffrey Jensen -- Jim Comey demonstrated all the problems with Barnett's 302.
www.emptywheel.net
The pattern of the extreme right is to react to "no charges" against Hillary or resulting from 36 Benghazi "hearings", or against Obama - Biden Admin., save for Greg Craig's "not guilty" jury verdict, nor any charges or NY State action against the Clinton Foundation, as if absence of any charges or NY or any other state civil action such as the forced closing of the Trump Foundation, is predictably, that the absence of any charges is somehow compelling proof of the severity of the crimes these demonized "lefties" have so far escaped all acountability for committing.
Because, of course "the left" are criminals, or Mr. Trump and the author of "Clinton Cash", would not be accusing all of them, in the first place.
If you just chant, "lock her up!", often enough, it is Hillary who must end up "in the dock", and certainly not the disgraceful chanter, Mike Flynn.
Truly, Trump has managed to herd his followers into a "facts free" alternate dimension.
I may have missed it, but did the entire debate pass by the other night without Trump making a single mention of Obamagate nonsense or Barr-Durham "investigation", now in its 17 month with no one charged.... the patsy who is accused of altering the meaning of an email is accused of an alleged offense arising from the IG Horowitz investigation, not an outcome of Durham's "efforts".
The Flynn "dismissal" hearing the other day was another disgrace on the voluminous Trump-Barr record, as well.
The judge has signaled skepticism about the legitimacy of Attorney General William Barr’s intervention to help a Trump ally.
www.nytimes.com
"...On Twitter, Mr. Strzok
accused Mr. Kohl of “materially misrepresenting” his actions.
Separately, in a letter docketed on Monday night, a lawyer for Mr. Strzok told Judge Sullivan that someone had altered handwritten notes by his client in one of the recent batches of internal materials turned over to Ms. Powell — adding two dates to them that he did not write, including one that suggested a White House meeting happened earlier than it did.
Judge Sullivan ordered the Justice Department to provide a sworn declaration certifying whether the materials submitted to him “were true and accurate,” saying he was “floored” by the “unsettling” claim that they had been modified.
Ms. Powell sparred with Judge Sullivan, initially resisting his demand that she tell him whether she had spoken with Mr. Trump about the case on the grounds that it was subject to executive privilege.
After he pointed out that she did not work for the government, and so the privilege did not apply to her, she said she had recently briefed Mr. Trump about developments in the case and asked him not to pardon her client. Pressed further, she cited The New York Times as
reporting that she had spoken to Mr. Trump at least five times.
As she has many times before, Ms. Powell also portrayed the case against her client as a corrupt and politically motivated conspiracy and demanded that Judge Sullivan recuse himself. He told her to file a written motion for recusal if she wanted...."
www.pbs.org
