Obama's "Crossfire Hurricane" Which Targeted President Trump Had No Legal Basis

Finally...An article that breaks down the illegality of the basis for "Crossfire Hurricane," the FBI report that set off the witch hunt of Candidate, then President Trump. Please read this eye-opening article from Kevin Brock of, The Hill:

New FBI Document Confirms the Trump Campaign 

Was Investigated Without Justification

Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released. It hasn't received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.

The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation.

Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent.

Keep in mind the FBI cannot begin to investigate anyone, especially a U.S. citizen or entity, without first creating a document that lists the reasonably suspicious factors that would legally justify the investigation. That's FBI 101, taught Day 1 at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va.

To the untrained eye, the FBI document that launched Crossfire Hurricane can be confusing, and it may be difficult to discern how it might be inadequate. To the trained eye, however, it is a train wreck. There are a number of reasons why it is so bad. Two main ones are offered below (if you would like to follow along, the document is here):

First, the document is oddly constructed. In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a "To" and a "From" line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a "From" line; it is from a part of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok. The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.

On that basis alone, the document is an absurdity, violative of all FBI protocols and, therefore, invalid on its face. An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.

In addition, several names are listed in a "cc" or copy line; all are redacted, save Strzok's, who, for some reason, felt it necessary to copy himself on a document he sent from himself to himself.

Names on an FBI document are always listed in cascading fashion, with the most senior at the top and on down to the least senior. On this EC, Strzok is listed last, so the redacted names should be more senior to him. Those names could well include then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Counterintelligence Assistant Director Bill Priestap. The document also establishes these redacted names as "case participants."

Second, the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law - in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf - that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated.

In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government's goals.

This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London.

The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos "suggested" to him that the Trump team had received "some kind of suggestion" of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion.

Strzok apparently took this nebulous reporting by Downer and then leapt to the dubious conclusion that Papadopoulos and unnamed others were engaged by the Russians to act as foreign agents on Russia's behalf. This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was "unclear" how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not.

Strzok then concludes the EC by moving the goalposts. He writes that Crossfire Hurricane is being opened to determine if unspecified "individual(s)" associated with the Trump campaign are "witting of and/or coordinating activities" - also unspecified - "with the Government of Russia." He doesn't even mention Papadopoulos.

Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn't, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.

What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.

To paraphrase a fired FBI director: No reasonable FBI counterintelligence squad supervisor in the field would have approved and opened that Strzok EC. They know the rules too well.

Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration's national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication. No pattern-recognition software needed here.

Hopefully, Exhibit A will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon. The rule of law, upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being, was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas, egos, biases and politics. Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let's pray we see some.

Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions, which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

Sleazebag Obama Claims that Charges Being Dropped Against Gen. Flynn is Wrong

Once again, former US President Barak "I had a scandal-free Administration" Obama, and sleazebag-in-Chief, opens his mouth and allows lies and hypocrisy to come out.

From the National Review:

"Yes, The Flynn Dismissal Upholds the Rule of Law"

‘There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” former president Barack Obama reportedly told members of the Obama Alumni Association. “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

We now know that the Obama administration engaged in unprecedented abuses of power, not merely in its persistent attempts to circumvent the other branches of the United States government, but in its weaponizing of government institutions for partisan ends, including our intelligence agencies.

Flynn, notwithstanding Obama’s contention, was never charged with “perjury” — a crime which entails lying under oath. Flynn faced trumped-up charges related to a conversation in which he allegedly misleading FBI agents. Flynn, who didn’t even know he was under investigation, was entrapped while agents were conducting a then-secret inquiry devoid of any credible evidence.

The Obama administration already had recordings of Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and knew that the incoming national-security adviser, who spoke to numerous heads of state, did not undermine American interests — which often change, and are a matter of interpretation — nor had he agreed to drop Russian sanctions on Donald Trump’s behalf.

Not even the agents who conducted the interview believed that Flynn had willfully intended to deceive them. Flynn was only charged ten months after the conversation, and only to keep the bogus Russia collusion investigation going.

Even then, the FBI hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his lawyers, as Obama’s allies in the Trump administration and Mueller’s deputies continued to pretend that the former general was a lynchpin.

Flynn initially pleaded guilty because he was facing bankruptcy and threats that his son would be prosecuted for unrelated crimes. Of course, even if Flynn had lied about an innocuous and complete legal conversation with the Russian ambassador in the midst of hysterical partisan-fueled media firestorm over “collusion,” it would have been irrelevant.

Considering these facts, it’s unsurprising that the Justice Department dropped its case against Flynn “with prejudice.” U.S. attorney Jeffrey Jensen found that investigation was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.”

Jensen could have added that the Flynn prosecution was a transparent attack on the rule of law.

he Obama administration and its allies had attempted to smear a decorated former general as a seditious operative by ensnaring him in a preposterous violation of the Logan Act — a 1799 law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized citizens with foreign governments, and has never been used successfully against any citizen.

This effort seems especially outlandish when one considers that even as Flynn was being prosecuted, Obama administration officials such as John Kerry were meeting with geopolitical foes from Iran and brazenly negotiating American foreign policy.

There is, regrettably, much precedent for law enforcement engaging in strong-arm tactics to intimidate Americans into accepting plea deals for various reasons. Most of those victims don’t have the legal or financial wherewithal to fight back.

There is no recent precedent, however, of an administration opening a criminal investigation into its political rivals during a presidential election. There is no precedent of basing that flimsy investigation on “misleading and inaccurate” information derived from a fabulist document like the Steele Dossier, paid for by the Democratic Party and itself larded with Russian disinformation. There is no precedent of an administration — and later its allies — spying on its political enemies in a presidential campaign, utilizing “fraudulent” proof, and purposely withholding “contradicting” evidence.

And Obama claims he’s worried about institutional norms?

Last week, Representative Adam Schiff, who has been flagrantly lying about possessing Russia collusion evidence for years, has finally forced to release transcripts of House Intelligence Committee–led investigation into Russian interference. The transcripts show that Obama-era officials — when under oath, rather than on TV — possessed no evidence of any criminal conspiracy. This includes former director of national intelligence James Clapper, who, let’s not forget, spied on the American people through a domestic-surveillance program and then lied about it under oath to Congress. Obama let him get off “scot-free.”

It’s no surprise that the Mueller investigation, despite its best efforts, couldn’t come back with a single indictment against anyone in the Trump administration for criminal conspiracy with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Then again, Obama allies succeeded in overwhelming our news coverage with conspiracy theories, and persuaded millions of gullible voters that the Russians had stolen the election. Those who work to undermine the peaceful transition of government power are the ones undermining the rule of law.

Obama, incidentally, is also wrong that Americans can’t point to any precedent of someone perjuring themselves and getting away with it. We’ll always have Bill Clinton. The revisionist tale we hear these days is that Clinton “lied about sex.” Sex might have been the immediate topic of the question. Yet Clinton lied not only to avoid the embarrassment and political ramification of his actions, but also to obstruct a grand jury investigation into Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit.

Clinton got off scot-free for his abuse of power. The question now is: Will those who conceived and executed the Russia-collusion swindle escape scot-free as well?