As I had explained in my post last Sunday, (Dec. 3rd), House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes had run out of patience with Robert Mueller's stall-tactics about "demoted" FBI hot shot Peter Strzok. Nunes had formally requested information on August 24th with a subpoena, and Mueller's team has yet to respond.
But, let’s digress for just a moment, (actually, one minute-fifty-four seconds), and recall how a Democratic Presidential Candidate---not placed under oath---managed to have thousands of emails destroyed “without her knowledge” and is subsequently absolved of any "intentional" wrong-doing.
In this extremely short video clip, while questioning former FBI Director James Comey, Congressional Representative Jim Jordan, (yes, he’s a Republican), points out---in context---to Mr. Comey exactly what Hillary Clinton did as a result of destroying her emails while obstructing an ongoing investigation. Keep in mind, according to Comey's boss, Loretta Lynch, this whole investigation is only "a matter". July 7th, 2016. (link to this video):
As you can see from this video, (above), and the following two, Jim Jordan seems to ask questions these people either don't have the answers to, or refuse to answer because some one else has that authority---not Comey, not Sessions, and now, not Wray. This tactic of passing the buck has got to stop.
Then, in this video testimony, published November 14th, 2017, Jim Jordan questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the events that took place in the summer of the 2016 Presidential race, specifically, about Fusion GPS, Uranium One, now fired FBI Director Comey's leaking of information to the New York Times, (via a professor friend), which triggers the appointment of a Special Counsel. (link to this video):
At first, Jeff Sessions tells Jim Jordan he can't divulge certain facts and conversations stating, "I'm not able to answer that". Then, when Jordan asked Sessions for information on if and who is investigating leaks to CNN, again, Sessions says he's not able to divulge these answers because it's now into the investigative powers of the Special Council. Later in this conversation, Sessions actually gets quite indignant with Jordan explaining how FACTS are necessary to the consideration of a second special council.
Needless to say, if you watch this video a second time, you can't help but get more pissed at Sessions' continued stone-walling while pretending to be totally ignorant of the facts.
Fast forward to yesterday, (December 7th), and in Jim Jordan's questioning of now FBI Director Christopher Wray, one thing seems to be crystal clear---Jim Jordan is almost the only person to know the facts, present them to the people, and expects both answers and actions. (link to this video):
Once again, the focus in this conversation brings us back to that pesky dossier. Jordan is asking for two specific answers---who prepared and submitted the application to the FISA courts, and was the dossier "document" part of that application?
Christopher Wray's response could have been read right out of a "How to be an FBI Director's" manual, literally filled with the same damned answers both Comey and Sessions gave---WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ANSWER THAT.
Bottom Line: Did Peter Strzok, while representing the FBI, present this dossier---as a credible document---to the FISA courts to obtain a search warrant allowing the FBI, (and other intelligence agencies), to surveil, wire-tap, and unmask American Citizens?
Further, (and this could be a far more egregious and illegal undertaking), was the FBI colluding with the DNC in obtaining this warrant---for the purpose of using this material against a Presidential Candidate?
Current FBI Director Christopher Wray, (and by extension, Attorney General Jeff Sessions) had better think long and hard about their reason to not divulge this information to the House Intelligence Committee, and more importantly, to the Citizens of the United States of America.
The Public has every right to know if departments within the Federal Government are committing collusion and corruption by purposely refusing to reveal these facts from their electors.
No comments:
Post a Comment