The Patriots

by Randy DeSoto

“In many cases she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks we’ve all misinterpreted his own words on any message that might be negative,” said Ratcliffe, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. John Ratcliffe reveals Lisa Page admitted her text messages with Peter Strzok “mean exactly what they say,” contrary to Strzok’s testimony pic.twitter.com/Ne21aWa8HJ

— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) July 17, 2018

When I questioned Lisa Page on Friday about the anti-Trump text messages that were sent between herself and Peter Strzok, there were significant differences in her testimony and Strzok’s as it relates to what she thought some of these text messages meant. pic.twitter.com/H73LfRFzUc

— John Ratcliffe (@RepRatcliffe) July 16, 2018

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report released last month concerning the Hillary Clinton email investigation found Strzok’s anti-Trump texts with his then-mistress Page “deeply” troubling.

“We were deeply troubled by text messages sent by Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations,” the report stated.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Strzok testified before the combined House Oversight and Judiciary committees last week that he did not remember writing the text, but he meant the “American people” would stop Trump by not voting for him.

“What I can tell you is that text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy,” Strzok stated.

In texts released by the inspector general in December, Strzok described Trump during the campaign as a “loathsome human” and an “idiot,” and found the prospect of him being president “terrifying.”

Page wrote Strzok in August 2016, “There is no way (Trump) gets elected.”

Strzok responded, “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. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

“Andy” apparently referred to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who stepped down from the position in January to go on administrative leave. He was fired in March, two days before he was due to retire.

An FBI agent who allegedly quit the bureau over his belief that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was rigged will testify before the House of Representatives, The Hill reported.

The joint investigation between the House Judiciary and the Oversight Committees — led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, respectively — has been a source of consternation for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Well, now we’re finally about to see some fireworks. Three top witnesses are going to testify before lawmakers: John Giacalone, who was in charge of the Clinton investigation for the first seven months; Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; and Michael Steinbach, former head of the FBI’s national security division and the man who succeeded Giacalone.

All three are of particular interest, especially since Priestap was the supervisor of FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages have thrown the objectivity of the entire investigation into doubt.

However, the real headliner here may be Giacalone. Shortly after then-FBI Director Comey announced he wouldn’t be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for the email server, Fox News pundit Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a column in which he claimed Giacalone had quit the bureau because he believed the investigation was rigged.

In the Oct. 28, 2016 column, Napolitano claimed at that at the start of the Clinton email investigation, “agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.”

“Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going ‘sideways’; that’s law enforcement jargon for ‘nowhere by design,'” Napolitano wrote.

“John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his ‘sideways’ comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.”

“The reason for the ‘sideways’ comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can,” Napolitano continued.

Napolitano speculated there were several possible reasons that the case went “sideways.” One was that Obama feared having to testify if Clinton went to trial (he had sent emails to the private server, after all, meaning he was aware of it). There was also the fact that a Clinton indictment could have led to Trump becoming president, and Obama simply couldn’t countenance that. (Less than two weeks after Napolitano’s column was written, it must be noted, that reason became moot.)

Either way, if the investigation had indeed gone “sideways,” it would need to have done so with approval from the highest levels — certainly James Comey and possibly Barack Obama.

Whether or not Giacalone has any concrete evidence of this or not is another issue entirely. My guess would be no, given that we’re going on two years since Comey’s infamous news conference and we still haven’t heard anything to that effect from Giacalone.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

by Chuck Ross


Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office is investigating a $150,000 donation a Ukrainian businessman made to President Donald Trump’s charity in 2015, according to a new report.  The donation, from steel magnate Victor Pinchuk, pales in comparison to contributions he gave to the charity established by Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The billionaire has contributed $13 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2006 and had access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state.

But Mueller is not investigating the Clintons. Instead, he is conducting a broad investigation of Trump, including the flow of foreign money into various Trump-controlled entities. Mueller began investigating the Pinchuk donation after receiving documents in response to a subpoena issued to the Trump Organization — the real estate company Trump ran before entering politics.

In September 2015, Trump appeared via video link at a conference Pinchuk hosted in Kiev. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, negotiated details of the event with Douglas Schoen, a former consultant for Bill Clinton, according to The New York Times.

Trump did not initially request payment for the appearance, but Cohen contacted Schoen at one point to request a $150,000 honorarium, The Times reported.

In a seemingly unrelated matter, the FBI raided Cohen’s Manhattan office and residence on Monday. The search was reportedly conducted for records related to Cohen’s payments to Stormy Daniels, a porn star claiming to have had an affair with Trump in 2006.

The Victor Pinchuk Foundation issued a statement to The Times, downplaying the donation to Trump. The charity reached out to Trump and other world leaders in order to “promote strengthened and enduring ties between Ukraine and the West,” it said.  Contact with Trump was made at a time when “it was by no means assured that Mr. Trump would be the Republican nominee in 2016,” the foundation pointed out.  Pinchuk appears to have had a much closer relationship to the Clintons.

In June 2012, the billionaire attended a dinner at the Clintons’ residence. And through Schoen, Pinchuk lobbied the State Department in 2011 and 2013.  Documents filed with the Justice Department show Schoen and Pinchuk met on several occasions in 2012 with Melanne Verveer, a close Clinton associate who then served as an ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues.

RELATED: Dershowitz: Mueller’s Setting Stage To Impeach Trump

Bill Clinton attended Pinchuk’s annual Yalta conference, The New York Times reported on Feb. 13, 2014. Pinchuk also attended the former president’s 65th birthday party in Los Angeles.

The FBI reportedly investigated the Clinton Foundation over its foreign donations. The status of that investigation is unclear.

This story originally appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

by Anonymous

Another look at Comey's possible intentions.

 Comey is not a stupid guy.  He may have been directed to "take the fall" with his Hillary announcement (we know that Loretta didn't want this thrown on her desk to preside over, even though the FBI has no authority to make decisions whether or not to prosecute crimes; they only investigate and Justice Dept decides that).  However, he decided to do something out of the ordinary -- lay out and disclose all of his evidence during his Press Conference.  He knew what he was doing and he knew that it would create a "firestorm" of controversy.  If he had just sent everything he had to AG Lynch, it might have all gotten buried or, at least, not disclosed until long after the election.  Instead, he threw it all out for the public to know.

 He also knew that it would cause Congress to call for an investigation so, now, he will not just be able to go and answer their questions; he made himself available almost instantly ( tomorrow at 10 AM) full well knowing that they will want to dig even deeper, hear about more evidence and have an open-ended Q&A for the entire day if they want to.  If he wanted to, he could have stalled this for a month just by saying "he's busy; send me a  Subpoena or let's schedule it for a convenient time.  I think Comey knew that this way the FBI's entire case will get a full public airing (and, since there isn't a prosecution pending, he can be candid and open about anything and everything).  If it went to the Justice Dept's hands, it would die a slow death there. 

Nothing will be kept secret now; we'll learn about things (such as Hillary having 12 private servers) that no one even suspected existed.  Comey can, literally, try this case before the public, just as he started to do laying out the key evidence just before "dropping the case", when everyone thought he was heading toward a recommendation of prosecution. The Public and Media will now get to know EVERYTHING that would or could have been presented in court if there was a prosecution (in fact, even more than what could be presented in court because there will be no rules of evidence holding him back).  This hearing could be extremely eye-opening.  Like I said, Comey isn't a stupid guy and he might have just outsmarted Lynch and Obama when they told him to "kill this case". 

A Grand Jury might have taken 6 months or longer to accomplish, if playing "according to Hoyle", plus it is secret, except for leaks.  Now nothing will be secret.  Again, Comey is not stupid and he might also prove that he is no one's lacky; however, he will just "play it straight"; answer all of the questions and not have to volunteer anything.  After all, Obama and Lynch can't tell him to lie to Congress.  He might look foolish laying out this case when not recommending prosecution but he might be wiser beyond our thinking because now he will just be responding to questions "under oath.

That's my take on this scenario.  This could come out to be the biggest fake-out in American history and, possibly, the only way to take down a liar and dishonest government official who is being "protected".  It might, actually, be worse than anything Hillary and Bill ever imagined. 

Who knows; maybe this will also carry into the Foundation crap as well.  We will see.