How does the FBI create an entrapment scheme? It’s easy, explains Francis Menton in the Manhattan Contrarian. The FBI asks you to detail a conversation you had, which the FBI happens to have recorded. You then are charged with “lying to the FBI” should your memory fail you and your version differs from the FBI transcript.
Among his many tweets, President Trump last week accused the reputation of the FBI of being “in tatters.” Tatters might be debatable, but Mr. Menton lists activities by Justice and the FBI through the Obama/Holder/Lynch era that would have had “anyone with integrity resigning long ago.”
- Used a piece of preposterous opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC as a pretext to obtain a FISA warrantto spy on the Republican candidate’s campaign while it was ongoing? That link, by the way, is not to some right-wing conspiracy theorist, but rather to CNN back in April.
- Put a highly partisan pro-Clinton senior FBI agent (Strzok) on the Clinton email investigation, and allowed him to change the wordsComey used to describe Hillary’s conduct from “gross negligence” (a crime) to “extremely careless”?
- Hired a team of some fifteen prosecutors to pursue the investigation of the Trump campaign, at least half of whom are highly partisan Democrats who have contributed to Obama, Clinton and the DNC,and none of whom have contributed to Republicans?
- Put the same highly partisan senior FBI agent on the job of tricking Flynn into an interviewabout a conversation that had previously been recorded by the FBI, so that they could manufacture a previously non-existent crime by characterizing any slip by Flynn in remembering the conversation as “lying to the FBI,” even if everything about the underlying conversation itself was perfectly legal?
- Refused to turn over to Congress the Strzok texts and other documents that would embarrass and/or incriminate the FBI and/or Justice itself — and continue the stonewall to the point of getting held in contempt of Congress?
On December 6, Judicial Watch released an email that it obtained via FOIA request from the Department of Justice. The email is from Andrew Weissmann to Sally Yates dated January 30, 2017. January 30 is the date that Sally Yates, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, sent a memo to everyone at the Justice Department instructing them not to implement the initial “travel ban” executive order that new President Trump had issued on January 27.
From: Weissmann, Andrew (CRM)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:50 PM
To: Yates, Sally (ODAG) <email@example.com> Subject: I am so proud
And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects,
Andrew Weissmann is currently the senior Justice Department prosecutor working with Mueller on the investigation of President Trump, Francis Menton informs readers.
Weissmann didn’t just think it was OK for Yates to violate her oath of office and try to overturn the result of the recent lawfully-conducted election. No, he went far beyond, asserting that he was “so proud” and “in awe.” He actively applauds defiance of the Constitution.
It is completely beyond me how a guy who thinks defiance of the oath of office is OK is allowed to work anywhere in the federal government, let alone on an investigation of the President he thinks it is OK to defy.
Read more here.
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
- What Makes Donald Trump Different? - August 23, 2019
- Senator Elizabeth Warren Chairs a Century-Long Taxpayer Fleecing - August 22, 2019
- Democratic Candidates Forced to Resort to “Wealth Inequality” - August 21, 2019