Counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok was a coordinator for the FBI briefing, which included multiple agencies in August of 2016, just 18 days after Strzok opened “Crossfire Hurricane,” the CI investigation into ‘Trump-Russia.’
Herridge says the FBI never warned Trump about the so-called ‘Russian outreach,’ nor did they warn Trump that two of his aides, General Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos were under FBI investigation, even though the defensive briefing is designed to warned candidates about national security threats.
Isn’t the FBI supposed to protect American citizens?
Via Fox News:
A mid-August 2016 counterintelligence briefing for the Trump campaign did not specifically warn officials about Russian outreach to the Trump team, nor did it warn that two campaign aides, Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos, were already under FBI investigation, Fox News has learned.
The new details about the so-called “defensive briefing” have emerged from congressional letters, text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page, and sources familiar with the matter. Such briefings are designed to warn the candidate and his team about national security threats.
“There was a defensive briefing of candidate Trump on Aug. 17 of 2016,” Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Thursday on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “And I can tell you what he wasn’t told: He wasn’t warned about a Russia investigation that Peter Strzok had opened 18 days earlier.”
Just days before Strzok’s August 2016 “defensive briefing,” text messages indicate Strzok set up times to rehearse. Strzok text his paramour Lisa Page on August 13: “Im going to have (redacted) do his CI (counterintelligence) brief presentation for me and Jon and (redacted) on Mon afternoon.”
Strzok also texted of another planned rehearsal: “I want to do another one Tues AM for at least Bill,” he said in reference to his FBI boss Bill Priestap. “You think add you, [FBI lawyer] Jim Baker? I want both (f)rank and thoughtfulness for feedback. Plus repetitions for him.”
Two days later Strzok sent Lisa Page his infamous “insurance policy” text.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” he texted at the time. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
Congressman Ratcliffe (R-TX) slammed Peter Strzok on Thursday.
“Why would Peter Strzok, who would participate at Jim Comey’s direction in a defensive briefing designed to protect and warn a candidate, be the same person who is in fact at that time already investigating the candidate’s campaign? That shouldn’t happen. There should be answers to those questions,” he said.
Congressman Ratcliffe said this issue is of special interest to Attorney General Bill Barr who is currently investigating the origins of the Russia investigation.
Watch more from Catherine Herridge:
Anti-Trump FBI special agent Peter Strzok never told the Trump campaign that Flynn and Papadopoulos were under investigation during an FBI briefing for the campaign in August 2016 that was supposed to warn the campaign of “national security threats”
Note the timeline of events pic.twitter.com/qtria0PHiv
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) May 30, 2019
Barr says he 'personally felt' Mueller could have reached decision on obstruction
This article was sourced from Foxnews
Attorney General Bill Barr has said that he “personally” felt that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could have reached a decision about whether or not President Trump obstructed justice during the Russia investigation.
During an exclusive interview with CBS News, Barr was asked whether he agreed with Mueller’s “interpretation” that he could not reach a decision on the president’s alleged obstruction of justice.
“I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision,” Barr said.
When asked again, he said: “Right, he could’ve reached a conclusion.”
“The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office,” Barr said, referring to the Justice Department policy laid out by its Office of Legal Counsel. “But he could’ve reached a decision whether it was criminal activity, but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained.”
Barr added: “I am not going to argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as heads of the Department to reach that decision.”
Mueller submitted his full report to Barr in late March. Days later, Barr released a four-page summary of the findings, noting Mueller’s team found no evidence that members of the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians during the 2016 presidential election. Barr and Rosenstein, who resigned earlier this month from the Justice Department, stated in the summary that the evidence was not sufficient to charge the president with an obstruction of justice offense.
Barr made his comments to CBS News one day after Mueller made the first and only public statement of his tenure as special counsel in which the former FBI director announced the official end of his investigation, his resignation from the Justice Department, and explained his investigatory decisions.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said Wednesday at the Justice Department. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller explained the longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, noting that “charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider.”
“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Mueller added Wednesday that it would be “unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
Mueller also said that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing,”—a statement some on the left took as a green light to intensify talks about impeachment proceedings.
When asked if he thought Mueller was suggesting Congress could be the “venue” to hold the president accountable, Barr said he was “not sure.”
“Well, I’m not sure what he was suggesting,” Barr said. “You know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crime as an adjunct to Congress.”
But congressional Democrats and even some 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls have seized on Mueller’s public statements and called for impeachment proceedings to begin.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose committee would lead any potential impeachment proceedings, said Wednesday that “all options are on the table.”
“Given that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump—and we will do so,” Nadler said in a statement. “No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.”
The president blasted Mueller on Thursday as “highly conflicted,” and claimed that Mueller “would have brought charges” against him in the Russia probe if he had “anything,” but maintained that “there were no charges to bring, and called the idea of impeachment a “scam.”
“I don’t see how they can,” Trump told reporters from the White House lawn Thursday. “It’s a dirty, filthy disgusting word, impeach. It’s high crimes—there was no high crime. So how do you impeach?”
Meanwhile, Barr, who has fallen under intense scrutiny over his handling of the Russia report, appointed U.S. attorney from Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation.
Earlier this month, the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt for defying the panel’s subpoena requiring that he turn over an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, as well as underlying documents and evidence. In turn, the president asserted executive privilege over the materials in a bid to protect those files from release.
Despite the criticism, Mueller defended Barr on Wednesday.
“We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general,” Mueller explained. “The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.”
Mueller said that he requested that only “portions of the report be released,” but that Barr “preferred to make the entire report public all at once,” –a move Mueller said he and the special counsel team “appreciate.”
“I do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision,” Mueller said.
This article was sourced from The Gateway Pundit