New FBI document confirms the Trump campaign was investigated without justification

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,214
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#1
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...s-the-trump-campaign-was-investigated-without

New FBI document confirms the Trump campaign was investigated without justification

By Kevin R. Brock, opinion contributor — 05/27/20 08:00 AM EDT 6,504
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

46,508
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter



Just In...


view all
View Latest Opinions >>

Related News


by








Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released. It hasn’t received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.
The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.
Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent.

Keep in mind the FBI cannot begin to investigate anyone, especially a U.S. citizen or entity, without first creating a document that lists the reasonably suspicious factors that would legally justify the investigation. That’s FBI 101, taught Day 1 at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va.
To the untrained eye, the FBI document that launched Crossfire Hurricane can be confusing, and it may be difficult to discern how it might be inadequate. To the trained eye, however, it is a train wreck. There are a number of reasons why it is so bad. Two main ones are offered below (if you would like to follow along, the document is here):
First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a “To” and a “From” line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a “From” line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.
In addition, several names are listed in a “cc” or copy line; all are redacted, save Strzok’s, who, for some reason, felt it necessary to copy himself on a document he sent from himself to himself.

Names on an FBI document are always listed in cascading fashion, with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior. On this EC, Strzok is listed last, so the redacted names should be more senior to him. Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap. The document also establishes these redacted names as “case participants.”
Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law — in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf — that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated.
In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government’s goals.
This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London.
The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos “suggested” to him that the Trump team had received “some kind of suggestion” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.

Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia’s behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was “unclear” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not.
Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified “individual(s)” associated with the Trump campaign are “witting of and/or coordinating activities” — also unspecified — “with the Government of Russia.” He doesn’t even mention Papadopoulos.
Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn’t, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.
What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.
To paraphrase a fired FBI director: No reasonable FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC. They know the rules too well.
Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration’s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication. No pattern-recognition software needed here.
Hopefully, Exhibit A will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon. The rule of law, upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being, was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas, egos, biases and politics. Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let’s pray we see some.
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions, which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,440
325
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#2
IF, the FBI investigation is found to be illegitimate, does that make the Mueller investigation illegitimate and therefore any prosecutions thereunder illegitimate, and therefore any convictions thereunder potentially thrown out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Apr 14, 2009
467
85
1,578
#6
It’s an opinion article. It says so at the top.
So I guess I can post my opinion also.
And you can Quote me on this!!
“trump is a sorry sack of $hit”
 
May 31, 2007
1,106
283
1,713
Edmond, OK
#7
Hillary winning was a foregone conclusion. This investigation was solely done to get dirt on Trump so that he would go quietly into the sunset after losing the election. Everyone on the left thought Trump didn’t even want to win and was just positioning himself to install a right wing media conglomerate. When Trump won the entire thing was repurposed as a political hit piece.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,214
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#8
If the facts are as the article claims, what do you say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hard to say the FISA stuff had no rules unlikely a law was broken there. Should have been but listening to some lawmakers this morning that's why the FISA bill got canned. Lot's of rules broken not sure how many of them are going to have criminal consequences.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,838
24,670
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#9
And yet we still have some people defending these actions. I can't help but remember the line from ROTS....and when liberty inevitably dies in this country, it will almost certainly be to thunderous applause.
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,440
325
713
60
Breckenridge, CO
#11
If the facts are as the article claims, what do you say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hard to say the FISA stuff had no rules unlikely a law was broken there. Should have been but listening to some lawmakers this morning that's why the FISA bill got canned. Lot's of rules broken not sure how many of them are going to have criminal consequences.
In most instances, defrauding a court is in fact illegal. If the FISA court approved warrants based on fraudulent representations, technically I would think anything thereafter derived from such warrant would be thrown out.

Does our justice system have the will to prosecute the offenders?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
13,434
11,214
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
#12
In most instances, defrauding a court is in fact illegal. If the FISA court approved warrants based on fraudulent representations, technically I would think anything thereafter derived from such warrant would be thrown out.

Does our justice system have the will to prosecute the offenders?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This morning a Senator was on the radio talking about how the FISA courts are different and don't have the same accountability for the LEO's using them as a normal court. He was saying he would be surprised if they managed to get any charges from the FISA abuse. The law was written that loose.