Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Ironman Durham to investigate the Russia Hoax

Recommended Posts

Ironman John Durham to investigate the Russia Hoax

Appointed by Barr to find out how & why the Hoax was started

John-Durham-Bob-Child-AP-640x480.jpg

Top Federal Prosecutor in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Hoax to Frame Trump/Illegally Spy on Campaign

ttorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was “lawful and appropriate,” a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Monday.

Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to conduct the inquiry, the person said. The person could not discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Durham’s appointment comes about a month after Barr told members of Congress that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016. He later said he was gathering a team to look into the origins of the special counsel’s investigation.

In his reference to spying, Barr appeared to be alluding to a surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on a former Trump associate, Carter Page, and the FBI’s use of an informant while the bureau was investigating former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Trump and his supporters have said that both instances point to the Justice Department and the FBI unlawfully spying on his campaign.

The inquiry, which will focus on whether the government’s methods to collect intelligence relating to the Trump campaign were lawful and appropriate, is separate from an investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The agency’s watchdog is also examining the Russia probe’s origins and Barr has said he expects the watchdog report to be done in May or June.

Congressional Republicans have also indicated they intend to examine how the investigation that shadowed Trump’s presidency for nearly two years began and whether there are any legal concerns.

/ 2 /

Nervous Clapper Claims ‘We Don’t Need Another Investigation Of The Investigators’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eight Questions for Russia Hoaxers to Answer After End of Mueller Probe

8 Questions for U.S. Attorney to Probe on Russia Hoax

Below, in no particular order, are eight key questions related to possible wrongdoing in the sordid Russia collusion affair.

1 – Was a false crime deliberately reported to the FBI?

Former British spy Christopher Steele reportedly met on July 5, 2016 with a Rome-based special agent, where he turned over the unsubstantiated, largely-discredited anti-Trump charges listed in his infamous dossier alleging collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The controversial Fusion GPS firm hired Steele to do the anti-Trump work that resulted in the compilation of the dossier. Fusion GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie law firm.

The dossier contents were so unverified that numerous major media outlets briefed on the document refused to publish stories on the salacious material.

The BBC reported that Steele’s information served as a “road map” for the FBI’s investigation into claims of coordination between Moscow and members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

2 – Were Obama administration officials involved in passing dossier charges of questionable political origin to the FBI or bolstering Steele’s credibility to the bureau?

David Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain, revealed in testimony that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier authored by former British spy Christopher Steele was being taken seriously.

. . . In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

3 – Did James Comey withhold from the FISA court key information raising questions about the dossier, which was utilized as evidence in successful FISA applications to obtain successive warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a former adviser to President Trump’s 2016 campaign?

Comey signed the first of three FISA applications in late October 2016. The second and third were renewal applications since a FISA warrant must be renewed every 90 days. All three applications reportedly cited the dossier.

Comey cited the Steele dossier in the applications to monitor Page even though his own FBI determined the document was “only minimally corroborated.”.

. . .Comey may have kept from the FISA court information that would at a minimum raise major questions about the dossier charges that were cited as key evidence against Page in the FISA applications.

The House Intelligence Committee memo documented that the dossier served as part of the basis for the warrant requests. “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo states.

4 – Who leaked a classified briefing about the dossier contents to CNN?

On January 10, CNN was first to report the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings inside classified documents presented one week earlier to then President Obama and President-elect Trump. The classified briefings were presented by Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Comey reportedly briefed Trump alone on the most salacious charges in the dossier.

CNN cited “multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” – in other words, officials leaking information about classified briefings – revealing the dossier contents were included in a two-page synopsis that served as an addendum to a larger report on Russia’s alleged attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Prior to CNN’s report leaking the Comey briefing to Trump, which was picked up by news agencies worldwide, the contents of the dossier had been circulating among news media outlets, but the sensational claims were largely considered too risky to publish.

All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey’s briefings themselves and the subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by “multiple US officials with direct knowledge,” seem to have given the news media the opening to report on the dossier’s existence as well as allude to the document’s unproven claims.

Following the CNN report, the full dossier document was published hours later by BuzzFeed.

5 – Why were Obama and Trump briefed on the dossier in the first place given that the questionable document was funded by Trump’s primary political opponents and the FBI itself could not corroborate the wild material?

As per above, those two classified briefings were subsequently leaked to the news media and set in motion an avalanche of anti-Trump news media coverage on the dossier’s wild allegations. The briefings also may have provided the veneer of respectability to a document circulated within the news media but widely considered too unverified to publicize.

. . .

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attorney General William Barr’s Russia Hoax Investigator John Durham Once Probed Robert Mueller in the Whitey Bulger Case, Sent One FBI Agent to Prison for 10 Years

Durham is the perfect investigator for the job by all accounts and he had experience with Robert Mueller in the Whitey Bulger case. He did not side with Mueller and Mueller’s agents suffered the consequences of Mueller’s, some would say, corrupt leadership.

THE WHITEY BULGER CASE

Back in the late 1990s, there were “allegations that FBI informants James ‘Whitey’ Bulger and Stephen ‘The Rifleman’ Flemmi had corrupted their handlers.

So, in 1999, Janet Reno appointed John Durham as Special Prosecutor and charged him with investigating FBI corruption in Boston.

As it turned out, FBI agents aided mass murderer, Whitey Bulger and hid his crimes. Bulger was a protected informant.

Durham sent one agent involved to prison for 10 years.

Then-US Attorney, Robert Mueller is probably the one who should have landed in the pen. He allowed four innocent men to be sent to prison for a murder he knew they didn’t commit.  He did it to protect Bulger.

One of the four men was in Florida at the time of the murder and could not have committed the murder.

When Durham went through the documents. He found that the four men, Enrico TameleoJoseph SalvatiPeter J. Limone, and Louis Greco, had actually been framed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Papadopoulos got "sucked in" to the Fraud

Mark Steyn Show with George Papadopoulos, part one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe DiG.: "Some of these guys are going to go to Prison!" (At 7 minutes)

The Ingraham Angle 5/14/2019

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironman John Durham to investigate the Russia Hoax

Appointed by Barr to find out how & why the Hoax was started

John-Durham-Bob-Child-AP-640x480.jpg

Top Federal Prosecutor in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Hoax to Frame Trump/Illegally Spy on Campaign

Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was “lawful and appropriate,” a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press on Monday.

Barr appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to conduct the inquiry, the person said. The person could not discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Durham’s appointment comes about a month after Barr told members of Congress that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign in 2016. He later said he was gathering a team to look into the origins of the special counsel’s investigation.

In his reference to spying, Barr appeared to be alluding to a surveillance warrant the FBI obtained on a former Trump associate, Carter Page, and the FBI’s use of an informant while the bureau was investigating former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Trump and his supporters have said that both instances point to the Justice Department and the FBI unlawfully spying on his campaign.

The inquiry, which will focus on whether the government’s methods to collect intelligence relating to the Trump campaign were lawful and appropriate, is separate from an investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The agency’s watchdog is also examining the Russia probe’s origins and Barr has said he expects the watchdog report to be done in May or June.

Congressional Republicans have also indicated they intend to examine how the investigation that shadowed Trump’s presidency for nearly two years began and whether there are any legal concerns.

/ 2 /

Nervous Clapper Claims ‘We Don’t Need Another Investigation Of The Investigators’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eight Questions for Russia Hoaxers to Answer After End of Mueller Probe

8 Questions for U.S. Attorney to Probe on Russia Hoax

Below, in no particular order, are eight key questions related to possible wrongdoing in the sordid Russia collusion affair.

1 – Was a false crime deliberately reported to the FBI?

Former British spy Christopher Steele reportedly met on July 5, 2016 with a Rome-based special agent, where he turned over the unsubstantiated, largely-discredited anti-Trump charges listed in his infamous dossier alleging collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The controversial Fusion GPS firm hired Steele to do the anti-Trump work that resulted in the compilation of the dossier. Fusion GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie law firm.

The dossier contents were so unverified that numerous major media outlets briefed on the document refused to publish stories on the salacious material.

The BBC reported that Steele’s information served as a “road map” for the FBI’s investigation into claims of coordination between Moscow and members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

2 – Were Obama administration officials involved in passing dossier charges of questionable political origin to the FBI or bolstering Steele’s credibility to the bureau?

David Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain, revealed in testimony that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier authored by former British spy Christopher Steele was being taken seriously.

. . . In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

3 – Did James Comey withhold from the FISA court key information raising questions about the dossier, which was utilized as evidence in successful FISA applications to obtain successive warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a former adviser to President Trump’s 2016 campaign?

Comey signed the first of three FISA applications in late October 2016. The second and third were renewal applications since a FISA warrant must be renewed every 90 days. All three applications reportedly cited the dossier.

Comey cited the Steele dossier in the applications to monitor Page even though his own FBI determined the document was “only minimally corroborated.”.

. . .Comey may have kept from the FISA court information that would at a minimum raise major questions about the dossier charges that were cited as key evidence against Page in the FISA applications.

The House Intelligence Committee memo documented that the dossier served as part of the basis for the warrant requests. “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo states.

4 – Who leaked a classified briefing about the dossier contents to CNN?

On January 10, CNN was first to report the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings inside classified documents presented one week earlier to then President Obama and President-elect Trump. The classified briefings were presented by Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Comey reportedly briefed Trump alone on the most salacious charges in the dossier.

CNN cited “multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” – in other words, officials leaking information about classified briefings – revealing the dossier contents were included in a two-page synopsis that served as an addendum to a larger report on Russia’s alleged attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Prior to CNN’s report leaking the Comey briefing to Trump, which was picked up by news agencies worldwide, the contents of the dossier had been circulating among news media outlets, but the sensational claims were largely considered too risky to publish.

All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey’s briefings themselves and the subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by “multiple US officials with direct knowledge,” seem to have given the news media the opening to report on the dossier’s existence as well as allude to the document’s unproven claims.

Following the CNN report, the full dossier document was published hours later by BuzzFeed.

5 – Why were Obama and Trump briefed on the dossier in the first place given that the questionable document was funded by Trump’s primary political opponents and the FBI itself could not corroborate the wild material?

As per above, those two classified briefings were subsequently leaked to the news media and set in motion an avalanche of anti-Trump news media coverage on the dossier’s wild allegations. The briefings also may have provided the veneer of respectability to a document circulated within the news media but widely considered too unverified to publicize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(last 3 Questions):

6 – What role, if any, did the Obama-era Justice Department play in perpetuating the politically tinged Russia collusion narrative?

...Bruce Ohr, a career Justice Department official, who admitted to interfacing repeatedly with dossier author Steele while Ohr’s wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS. Fusion, again, was paid by Clinton and the DNC to compile the Steele dossier.

Possible Justice Department bias was spotlighted by the Justice Department’s Inspector General report on the Clinton email probe which described an extraordinary system of communication set up between former FBI official Lisa Page and former deputy director Andrew McCabe that bypassed the ordinary chain of command to communicate important information about the agency’s probe of Clinton’s email server.

7 – Was the Clinton-funded dossier utilized in the Obama-era Intelligence Community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan gave contradictory testimony on the matter.

The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report released by Comey’s FBI, Brennan’s CIA and the NSA under Mike Rogers assessed that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. It also claimed that Russia worked to aid Trump’s electoral victory.

In testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees, Comey stated that material from the Steele dossier was indeed utilized in the IC report. Internally, the FBI referred to the dossier as “crown material.”

“So do you recall whether any quote, crown material or dossier material was included in the IC assessment?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked Comey.

“Yes,” Comey replied. “I’m going to be careful here because I’m talking about a document that’s still classified. The unclassified thing we talked about earlier today, the first paragraph you can see of exhibit A, is reflective of the fact that at least some of the material that Steele had collected was in the big thing called the intelligence community assessment in an annex called annex A.”

Annex A in the report was titled, “Russia—Kremlin’s TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.”

The annex, like the rest of the report, contains the following disclaimer:

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.

Comey went on to describe a conversation that he said he had with Brennan about how to include the dossier material in the IC assessment:

Gowdy: Do you recall the specific conversation or back and forth with then-Director Brennan on whether or not the material should be included in the IC assessment?

Comey: Yes. I remember conversation — let me think about it for a second. I remember there was conversation about what form its presentation should take in the overarching document; that is, should it be in an annex; should it be in the body; that the intelligence community broadly found its source credible and that it was corroborative of the central thesis of the intelligence community assessment, and the discussion was should we put it in the body or put it in an attachment.

I’m hesitating because I don’t remember whether I had that conversation — I had that conversation with John Brennan, but I remember that there was conversation about how it should be treated.

Comey’s descriptions are at direct odds with a statement Brennan made during May 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in which Brennan claimed the dossier was “not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment” on alleged Russian interference. Brennan repeated that claim during numerous news media interviews.

Comey is not the only former top official involved in the IC report to say that the dossier played a role in the report’s conclusions.

As RealClearPolitics.com documents, former NSA Director Rogers wrote in a classified letter that the dossier played a role in the IC’s assessment and a dossier summary was included in an initial draft appendix:

In a March 5, 2018 letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as “the Christopher Steele information” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “part of the overall ICA review/approval process.”

James Clapper, who served as director of National Intelligence under the Obama administration, conceded during a CNN interview that the IC assessment was able to corroborate “some of the substantive content of the dossier,” implying that the dossier itself was a factor.

“I think with respect to the dossier itself, the key thing is it doesn’t matter who paid for it,” Clapper said. “It’s what the dossier said and the extent to which it was — it’s corroborated or not. We had some concerns about it from the standpoint of its sourcing which we couldn’t corroborate.”

“But at the same time, some of the substantive content, not all of it, but some of the substantive content of the dossier, we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community assessment which from other sources in which we had very high confidence to it,” he added.

It was Clapper’s agency that released the Intelligence Community report.

The purported inclusion of the dossier may help to explain why Rogers’ NSA assessed the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

8 – Was the infamous Trump Tower meeting a political dirty trick against the Trump campaign?

Multiple Breitbart News investigations into the infamous brief meeting at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 between individuals tied to Russia, Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials point to the increasing likelihood of the confab being set up as a dirty trick against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Three Russian participants at the meeting have ties to the controversial Fusion GPS outfit, and two have confirmed ties to Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROGER STONE SWINGS FOR THE FENCES; COURT FILING CHALLENGES RUSSIAGATE’S ORIGINAL PREMISE

Stone’s suppression motion also points out that the FBI and Mueller completely violated every forensic standard in the book by accepting the forensics of the DNC vendor, CrowdStrike, rather than securing and examining the alleged crime scene themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOW THE RUSSIA HOAX, & mueller's cover-up was assembled

(in some detail)

Ep. 981 Is This What They’re Hiding? The Dan Bongino Show 5/16/2019.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coming Wrath of Barr: The Real Story of the Russia Hoax : Graham J. Noble from Liberty Nation
Get ready to hear a lot more about John H. Durham.

A History of Investigating Government Officials

In 1999, Durham was appointed special prosecutor to investigate alleged ties among Boston police officers, federal agents, and organized crime figures, including James “Whitey” Bulger. As a result of Durham’s work, four men who had been imprisoned for murder years earlier had their sentences vacated because they had been framed by the FBI. One retired agent was sentenced to ten years in prison on racketeering charges. Another former agent who faced charges died before his trial.

In 2008, Durham was assigned to look into a major scandal involving the CIA’s destruction of graphic interrogation recordings, though the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to bring charges in the case. The following year, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Durham to examine the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” methods.

Upping the Ante

John-H.-Durham-300x197.jpg

John H. Durham

If Barr did not anticipate the possibility of criminal indictments or the need to subpoena former government officials – people like former FBI Director James Comey – he could have handed off the probe to Michael Horowitz, the DOJ’s inspector general. Horowitz, who is currently looking into the FBI’s application for a FISA warrant in 2016 and three subsequent extensions of that warrant, does not have the scope of authority to investigate the affair conclusively. Essentially, inspectors general could be described more as auditors than investigators.

The Justice Department’s IG is expected to deliver his report sometime in June,  and Durham may well use Horowitz’s findings in his own investigation. Unlike Horowitz, Durham can subpoena private citizens – including former government officials – as well as utilize the full range of prosecutorial tools.

A Massachusetts native, Durham was appointed in 2017 to his current position as a U.S. attorney by President Donald Trump. The prosecutor’s scope, with regard to the origins of the Russia investigation, has not been revealed by the DOJ. According to a source not authorized to comment publicly, Durham will determine whether the original FBI probe into alleged collusion between Russia and Trump campaign associates was properly conducted.

Durham, a Republican, is known as “apolitical.” His record indicates a tough but fair prosecutor who, as The Washington Post put it in 2009, has “parachuted into crisis situations for both political parties over three decades.” The fact that Barr has enlisted him is no small matter. The entire collusion story has crumbled rapidly, over the past few months, and it now seems possible – finally – that those who conspired to fabricate a phony, politically motivated counterintelligence operation will face a reckoning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A Real AG at last!"

Bill Barr is asking the right questions... & serving America

Barr forcefully defends DOJ probe into origin of the Russia investigation

Attorney General Bill Barr is forcefully defending the Justice Department's probe into the origins of the Russia investigation, saying he has “more questions today than when I first started.”

In a series of interviews about the investigation that has been demanded by President Donald Trump and his allies, Barr said the inquiry is necessary to make sure top law enforcement officials weren't trying to "put their thumb on the scale" when it came to the 2016 election.

Exclusive: Barr talks to Fox News in first on-air interview as Trump's AG

Comment:

Here is one very good reason to trust AG Barr: he refused to speculate about the motives of Comey et al. THAT is what a fair and just person does. He is a person of integrity.

/ 2 / Analysis

BILL BARR CONFIRMS IN FOX INTERVIEW TODAY THAT COMEY, BRENNAN & CLAPPER ARE ALL UNDER INVESTIGATION

/ 3 /

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS !

Better even than Releasing the Kraken ! (maybe)

(Releasing the Sessions was a total Flop. Releasing Barr is something very different.)

Trump moves to escalate investigation of intel agencies

2000.jpeg

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday granted Attorney General William Barr new powers to review and potentially release classified information related to the origins of the Russia investigation, a move aimed at accelerating Barr’s inquiry into whether U.S. officials improperly surveilled Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Trump directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully cooperate” with Barr’s probe. The directive marked an escalation in Trump’s efforts to “investigate the investigators,” as he continues to try to undermine the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe amid mounting Democratic calls for impeachment proceedings.

Press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that Trump is delegating to Barr the “full and complete authority” to declassify documents relating to the probe, which would ease his efforts to review the sensitive intelligence underpinnings of the investigation. Such an action could create fresh tensions within the FBI and other intelligence agencies, which have historically resisted such demands.

Barr has already asked John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to examine the origins of the Russia investigation to determine whether intelligence and surveillance methods used during the probe were lawful and appropriate. Still, Barr has been directly involved, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss it publicly, and is also working with CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Trump is giving Barr a new tool in his investigation, empowering his attorney general to unilaterally unseal documents that the Justice Department has historically regarded as among its most highly secret. Warrants obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, for instance, are not made public — not even to the person on whom the surveillance was authorized.

Trump explicitly delegated Barr with declassification power — noting it would not automatically extend to another attorney general — and only for use in the review of the Russia investigation. Before using the new authority, Barr should consult with intelligence officials “to the extent he deems it practicable,” Trump wrote in a memo formalizing the matter.

Trump has frequently claimed his campaign was the victim of “spying,” though the intelligence community has insisted it acted lawfully in following leads in the Russia investigation and conducted surveillance under court order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×