JUST IN: Never seen before footage emerges of Jacob Chansley calling the FBI after the Jan 6th protest..

JUST IN: Never seen before footage emerges of Jacob Chansley calling the FBI after the Jan 6th protest.. pic.twitter.com/Qh9kwtRNVm

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) March 12, 2023

Epoch Times: What FBI took during raid on Trump home

 US Government Seized Over 11,000 Non-Classified Documents From Trump’s Home

By Zachary Stieber September 2, 2022 Updated: September 2, 2022biggersmaller Print

FBI agents seized over 11,000 documents and photographs without classified markings from the home of former President Donald Trump, according to an inventory released on Sept. 2.

Agents during the Aug. 8 raid at Mar-a-Lago seized 11,179 materials that were not marked classified, the inventory says.

They also took 103 documents marked classified, including some marked top secret.

The warrant, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart days earlier, enabled agents to seize any documents with classification markings, as well as containers in which the documents were located and any containers stored or found together with the documents.

It also let agents seize information regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material; any government and/or presidential records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021; and any evidence “of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings.”

10 Telltale Signs You're About To Get Raided By The FBI

 

From investigating school board parents to raiding Mar-a-Lago, the FBI is on a rampage! Who will they raid next? It could be you!

To help you protect yourself, The Babylon Bee has consulted law enforcement experts to learn the top 10 signs the FBI is about to kick your door down:

1. A windowless van labeled "Fiber Board Installers" has been parked outside your house all week: And there's a satellite dish on the roof. Weird.
2. The bush in your front yard is a foot closer to the house every time you look at it: You could've sworn it was by the road when you planted it. Are those eyes?!
3. You were dumb enough to engage in drug and sex trafficking without being Biden's son: Classic rookie mistake!
4. Your door dash delivery guy is showered and clean-shaven: He's clearly a Fed.
5. Your wife keeps shooing pesky FBI agents rummaging through her closet: Too late! You're already being raided!
6. You were the president and took the nuclear codes home with you: Hopefully, they'll be lenient since you made America great again.
7. You attended a school board meeting in the last 12 weeks: You monster!
8. You're alone in your house and you sneeze and a mysterious voice behind the wall says "bless you": At least they're polite.
9. The kid delivering your newspaper is clearly an adult midget with a 5 o'clock shadow dressed as a kid: Oops — sorry, we meant "little person."
10. You just clicked on this Babylon Bee article: Oh no! You're on the watchlist forever now!

THE LAW IS NOT A MORAL COMPASS

 

Acting on tip from a Dutch informer, the Nazi Gestapo captures 15-year-old Jewish diarist Anne Frank and her family in a sealed-off area of an Amsterdam warehouse.

For those of you who are too young, the Gestapo (Secret State Police) were the German version of the FBI. 

Steyn on the FBI

 After the last half-decade, my instinct is not to believe a single word the FBI says about anything, and to support any candidate who vows to dissolve the bureau and start from scratch. Setting aside the Strzok-Page-Comey-McCabe stuff, this is a national police agency that devotes more resources to investigating a Nascar garage-door pull-rope than to a Hunter Biden laptop bursting with oligarch money-laundering and alleged kiddie porn: I would be surprised if such bizarre priorities could get them elected as village constable in the average New Hampshire township. Yet we are now assured, at a time when Big Social are more powerful than any government on the planet and are openly suppressing one of the two presidential campaigns, that the big problem is mullahs posing as "Proud Boys".

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Setting up George Papadopoulos

Comey: 'We Did Not Spy---We Just Observed And Reported Secretly Without The Subject's Knowledge Or Consent'

Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—After Attorney General Barr suggested that the FBI and other agencies spied on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, former FBI director James Comey fired back.

"We did not spy," he told reporters as he stretched for his morning yoga class. "We just observed and reported secretly without the subject's knowledge or consent."

"See, I've never considered that spying," he added as he formed the "downward dog" pose. "That's just kind of secret watching. It's definitely not the same thing. When you spy, you watch someone without their knowledge. When you secret-watch, you just kind of secretly watch them."

So what did we learn from Bill Priestap’s compendious and revealing testimony?

• We learned that the FBI and Justice targeted and took action against Trump.
• We learned that the FBI, according to Priestap, is incapable of securing a FISA warrant with information that isn’t credible, although the judge’s approval of the warrant means by definition that the information is credible.
• We learned that the FBI believes political interference in an investigation can be proper as long as the bureau isn’t acting purely politically.
• We learned that the FBI did send at least one asset to do to the Trump campaign an activity that even the bureau would call “spying” — if it were done by foreign operatives.
• We learned that the origins of the Trump-Russia tale will never be fully understood until the part played by British intelligence is made clear.

That’s an awful lot to take away from one largely neglected transcript. But it suggests just how much remains unknown about the Trump-Russia investigation while providing a glimpse at the people that want to keep it that way.

FBI: if we tell lies to a FISA Judge and he approves it, it's the truth.

Shen followed with another broad, all-encompassing question about the propriety of the FBI and DoJ’s behavior: “Are you aware,” she asked Priestap, “of any instances where the FBI or DOJ did not present what constituted credible and sufficient evidence to justify a FISA warrant?”

Priestap’s response is a textbook case of circular logic: “If it's not justified, the court doesn't approve it. So, like, if we're not meeting the standard required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the requests are turned down.”

“So, in other words,” said the Democratic counsel, “by definition, if you presented information and a FISA court approved it, that would constitute credible sufficient information?”

“In my opinion,” said Priestap, “yes.”

Sit back and savor that exchange for a moment. One of the most senior officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation – an organization that regularly refers for prosecution people who don’t tell the full truth – champions this peculiar standard of credibility: If you can snooker a FISA court judge, the information used to traduce the court is rendered by definition “credible sufficient information.” What is the condition of the FBI if its leaders think whatever you can get past a judge is good enough?

Does the FBI "spy?"

It's not spying if we do it.

Democratic staff counsel Valerie Shen tried to use her questioning of Priestap to put the spying issue to bed. “Does the FBI use spies?” she asked the assistant director for counterintelligence (who would be in a position to know).

“What do you mean?” Priestap responded. “I guess, what is your definition of a spy?”

“Good question,” said Shen. “What is your definition of a spy?”

Before Priestap answered, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, intervened. “Just one second,” he said. Then Ettinger – who was one of President Bill Clinton’s attorneys during the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandal – conferred with his client.

Back on the record, Priestap presented what smacks of pre-approved testimony: “I've not heard of nor have I referred to FBI personnel or the people we engage with as – meaning who are working in assistance to us – as spies. We do evidence and intelligence collection in furtherance of our investigations.”

Shen was happy with the answer, and so she asked Priestap to confirm it: “So in your experience the FBI doesn't use the term ‘spy’ in any of its investigative techniques?” Priestap assured her the word is never spoken by law-enforcement professionals – except, he said (wandering dangerously off-script), when referring to “foreign spies.”

“But in terms of one of its own techniques,” Shen said, determined to get Priestap back on track, “the FBI does not refer to one of its own techniques as spying?”

“That is correct, yes.”

“With that definition in mind, would the FBI internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens?”

“No.”

So there we have it with all the decisive logic of a Socratic dialogue: The FBI could not possibly have spied on the Trump campaign because bureau lingo includes neither the noun “spy” nor the verb “to spy.” Whatever informants may have been employed, whatever tools of surveillance may have been utilized, the FBI did not spy on the Trump campaign – didn’t spy by definition, as the bureau doesn’t use the term (except, of course, to describe the very same activities when undertaken by foreigners).

What’s telling about this line of questioning is that it inadvertently confirms Republican suspicions — and Attorney General Barr’s assertion. If House Democrats believed there had been no spying on the Trump campaign, they could have asked Priestap whether the FBI ever spies on Americans, given the common meaning of the verb “to spy.” They could have flat-out asked whether the FBI had spied on Trump World. Instead, Democratic counsel asked whether, given the FBI’s definition of spying, the bureau would “internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens.” It would seem that Democrats were every bit as convinced as Republicans that the FBI spied on Trump’s people.

FBI, Trump Investigation Division

Former FBI official feared Strzok-Page affair could compromise them

Mr. Priestap told the House Judiciary Committee that he talked to the anti-Trump lovebirds about rumors they were having an affair, but he never asked them if there was truth to the workplace gossip at the bureau.

“[T]hey knew darn well that, if that was going on that potentially makes them vulnerable,” he said, according to the transcript of the closed-door hearing.

How to end our national nightmare — probe Hillary Clinton again

Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has completed his investigation, it is tempting to breathe a sigh of relief and assume that our long national nightmare is over. Resist the temptation, the assumption is false.

We are not close to the end. Not by a long shot....


But even as we learn the details of what Mueller found, there remains a giant black hole about the very origins of the FBI investigation that led to his appointment in the first place.

It is astonishing, for example, that at this late date, we still do not know what evidence the disgraced James Comey and his FBI had to open the original probe in the summer of 2016, and whether there was anything other than the fatally tainted Russian dossier.

FBI Malfeasance

Steele admits he used posts from 'random individuals' on CNN website for Trump dossier

Rick Moran @ American Thinker

The dossier that launched several investigations into Donald Trump and his presidential campaign was based, in part, on posts from "random individuals" from a CNN website that allows the public to publish unverified information.

Christopher Steele made the admission in a deposition given in connection with a lawsuit against the dossier. The judge released portions of the deposition this week.

Washington Examiner:

According to deposition transcripts released this week, Steele said last year he used a 2009 report he found on CNN's iReport website and said he wasn't aware that submissions to that site are posted by members of the public and are not checked for accuracy.

A web archive from July 29, 2009 shows that CNN described the site in this manner: "iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post."

The FBI was able to obtain several FISA warrants based on the dossier. Was the FISA judge told that some of the information was from an internet crank?

He was pressed on this further: "Do you understand that CNN iReports are or were nothing more than any random individuals' assertions on the Internet?" Steele replied: "No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it may has [sic] some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site."

When asked about his methodology for searching for this information, Steele described it as "what we could call an open source search," which he defined as "where you go into the Internet and you access material that is available on the Internet that is of relevance or reference to the issue at hand or the person under consideration."

Steele said his dossier contained "raw intelligence" that he admitted could contain untrue or even "deliberately false information."

When in doubt, Google it.

The FBI was aware of Steele's "sources" but still used the dossier to convince a FISA judge to issue a warrant against Trump campaign aide Carter Page. That the FBI has, to this day, refused to verify the authenticity of the information in the dossier is not surprising. A document as flawed as this should never have been presented to a FISA court as justification for granting a warrant to spy on Carter Page. It makes the FBI look ridiculous.

THIS IS WORSE THAN I THOUGHT.

Lindsey Graham calls for investigation into FBI, DOJ

Does the FBI and the DOJ need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

After the end of Apartheid, the South African government established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Africa (TRC), a court-like body to help heal the country and bring about a reconciliation of its people by uncovering the truth about human rights violations that had occurred during the period of apartheid.   

Its emphasis was on gathering evidence and uncovering information—from both victims and perpetrators rather than prosecuting individuals for past crimes.

Perhaps we need a TRC to allow people in the Justice Department and the FBI to come forward and admit the abuse of civil rights that occurred during the Obama Administration as officials in the FBI and the Justice Department conspired to prevent the election of Donald Trump and, following the election, to engineer a slow-motion coup against a duly elected president. 

  

It appears that naming a new FBI director, Christopher Wray has done nothing to end the cover-up that continues unabated.   

The FBI just sent 29 armed and armored agents to arrest a 66-year-old man with no criminal record for the purpose of a televised “perp walk” designed to inflame the public.   

The DOJ refuses to reveal why, on the morning of November 19th, sixteen FBI agents raided the Maryland home of a DOJ whistleblower who was in possession of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One documents implicating Robert Mueller who now heads a group aimed at removing President Trump from office.

The DOJ has empowered a two-year investigation of any links between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with the result of zero findings of collusion but the creation of process crimes created by the investigator.  

We are told that there are honest people in the FBI and DOJ who are angry about the cloud that now hovers over their departments.  If these people could come forward without fear of losing their jobs or going to prison, would that allow the truth to be revealed?  Would Truth and Reconciliation prevail, or are the battle lines now so sharply drawn between the sides that one side must destroy the other?

IT REMINDS ME OF WHAT’S HIS FACE WHO MADE THE INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS?

Sarah Hoyt:

When democrats screw up and need a distraction they drag an innocent (well the filmmaker was innocent of the massacre or our ambassador) out of bed and arrest him before the cameras. It’s time we tell them it’s over.

And btw, in this entire Russian collusion thing, no one has asked the obvious question: supposing Trump was dirty and wanted to cheat his way into the presidency, WHY would it ever occur to him or anyone even slightly sane that Putin had the keys to the white house? Not since Jimmah Carter tried to get them to help him with reelection has such a crazy idea struck anyone. At least Jimmah tried to do this while the Soviet Union existed and had power but why would ANYONE think Putin would put them in the white house?

Are the democrats ALL still being blackmailed with their KGB files and do they therefore attribute near-magical-powers to the Russians? One has to assume that. The alternative is heavy hallucinogen use.

More from Neo:

You can rest easy in your beds, folks, because the intrepid FBI has captured fearsome process criminal Roger Stone:

This is the FBI - Oh, Lord help us.

Compromised agents, blatant lies, psychotic leaking to press, fabricated evidence, lying under oath, rogue agents, unwarranted spying etc. NOTHING has made Wray speak out but take away a paycheck from a small portion of his precious club and he’s angry. Unreal. pic.twitter.com/ks5HbicMle

— Rosie memos (@almostjingo) January 26, 2019

5 Times Trump People Were Trapped Into Creating Russiagate Narratives

Suppose the entire DOJ is just a giant sting operation designed to destroy the Right, and you would not be far wrong.