Report: FBI and DOJ Officials “Scrambling to Respond” To Declassification Directives…

“The executive branch is holding Trump hostage and trying to wait out the election hopeful to have a change in congressional power.  This preserves their institutions and executes their goals.  It is the legislative branch who are trying to help the President and force the officials within the cabinet to admit the corruption.”

via Report: FBI and DOJ Officials “Scrambling to Respond” To Declassification Directives…

I’m going to copy some comments from the original post here as food for thought.  What tipped me to include them was “Wolfmoon’s” “like” of one of these posts…& I usually consider Wolfmoon & Fleporeblog & BigMamaTEA to be well-reasoned commenters…


  1. Blade says:

    The executive branch is holding Trump hostage and trying to wait out the election hopeful to have a change in congressional power. This preserves their institutions and executes their goals. It is the legislative branch who are trying to help the President and force the officials within the cabinet to admit the corruption.

    That is a big overstatement. By my count there are 30 or so reliable House members, and 5-10 in the Senate depending on which way the wind is blowing. Be generous and say 40 allies out of 535 voting members of Congress which is just a piddling 7% support, which BTW exactly matches his support in the District Of Criminals which voted 93% for Cankles. This fact of life plays into every decision President-Elect and President Trump has made since election day, including the stand-down order Nov 22, 2016 to NOT pursue Hillary despite the high-profile statement at the 2nd debate, and also the December 2016 walk-back of a planned massive IC community re-organization. These were political considerations and signaled an olive branch. It also played into the decision to not fire everybody on day-1. He did not have the support then, so it was logical to not clean house, and really still doesn’t.

    You are also overstating the case that everyone in the bureaucracy wants to preserve it and make it grow. It will still be there after they are all gone, there is no danger of it disappearing unless 535 Constitutionalists were in Congress. 7% does not scare the bureaucrats. And Congress is who legislates the new statutes not the White House. These critters are not so much about saving a beloved institution as their own skins, reputations and pensions. None care about any other critter other than themselves despite their tweets about solidarity. But the most ludicrous thing IMHO is that anyone believes Sessions would choose preserving the bureaucracy over his actual beliefs which mirror Trump. I always ask this: which of Trump’s appointments most closely match him? Everyone ducks, but the answer is Sessions of course, on everything ( except for the most extreme issues such as gays in the military or transgender bathrooms, issues that Trump is most liberal on and ironically where Sessions is closer to Trump voters than he is! ). And if you believe Sessions is a swamper then by definition all of Trump’s other appointments must be worse since they all trail in comparison to Sessions on an issue by issue comparison to Candidate/President Trump. It’s not even close.

    Having said that, and ignoring the hyperbolic overstatements, I like what our few reliable Congress members are up to. They are doing a good job of keeping important things front and center. They have drawn blood from the special counsel as has Trump. And this is unlike all previous cases as no-one has ever really laid a glove on them in the past. There is much they haven’t done though. They haven’t summoned Mueller for hearings. Folks like Nunes would rather gaslight than answer basic questions. However, the President himself has lately shown a knack for undercutting whatever progress is made in astonishing fashion. How can anyone possibly rationalize those two tweets concerning Sessions ‘allowing two Congressmen to be nailed by DoJ’ with a straight face? all of a sudden all those commenters taking his tweets literally became quiet as a mouse. More fires to put out. No way to take them literally without accepting that Trump is asking for obstruction in unprecedented fashion. And since this “obstruction” angle is exactly one of Mueller’s alleged targets, along with seeking answers of his pressuring Sessions, now what do all the literalists have to say? But I’ll get to this in my next comment.


  1. Blade says:

    AG Jeff Sessions is recused from anything to do with corruption within the 2016 election, operation ‘spygate’, operation ‘crossfire hurricane’, and the Russia investigation. The same career OLC lawyers within the system convinced Sessions of his conflicts, and have carved the Attorney General out of the investigative processes within the DOJ.

    But wait, do you notice how Dana Boente (former interim head of DOJ-NSD) was participating with Peter Strzok’s lead DOJ aide “Tash” Gauhar in the discussion which recommended Attorney General Jeff Sessions should be recused? Sessions’ official announcement came immediately after this meeting on March 2nd, 2017.

    I’m surprised anyone can still question the recusal with all we know since the inauguration, with all that has been learned since, and also considering historical precedent. Absolutely mind-boggling to me. So let’s simply cut right to the chase here Sundance. Was Janet Reno wrong to recuse from Whitewater and Vince Foster matters?. She had far less reason to as she was not involved personally at all in those cases, nor was she a Clinton campaigner or even remotely connected to them. In fact she was just one of your local Florida district attorneys and recused over the appearance of impropriety because she was merely appointed by Bubba, and that is much less reason than Sessions had who was a target of the anti-Trump coup, an endorser of Trump, part of his campaign staff and of course appointed by him. They are big on precedent down there at DoJ, and on appearance of impropriety ( the ones with integrity that is ). There was no way Sessions could possibly leave himself in charge of the coup investigations. And I await anyone who can rationalize that impossibility beyond these factoids that tell you nothing.

    And what about the ludicrous Greg Jarrett charge that Sessions used the wrong regulation ( “regs say only for criminal matters” ). Wrong for at least three reasons. (1) The regulations apparently haven’t been updated to cover the new improved post-9/11 FBI with its NSD division duties that Patriot Act and other legislation stupidly handed them. They need to strike that word criminal since it implies that spying is okay otherwise. No, it’s not. Hasn’t Greg realized the bulk of this hoax scandal occurred while under the NSD roof? (2) Regulations are for the rank and file to not spoil cases on the back-end during appeals and also to keep the bureau in the four corners of law they supposedly protect. But the Attorney General and all political appointees have more than mere regulations to follow. They have considerations to not damage the government and the administration that appointed them. They must protect the government and cannot do anything that brings disrepute upon it. For example the Attorney General cannot do something unethical or corrupt that will cause the President who appointed him a scandal or even be impeached. Ignoring this obvious concern, Jarrett is literally describing a corrupt lawyer looking for a loophole to use to exploit the spirit of the law, in this case to NOT recuse and handle matters he is involved in. Call your sponsor Greg, he’s waiting for your call. (3) This most obvious reason his theory is ridiculous is this. Since the coup was initially ( late 2015 to spring 2017 ) couched within NSD as a national security spying operation, this allowed them secrecy, access to NS apparatus such as Fort Meade data pulls and FISA warrants, phone taps and everything else … BUT … it eventually would have to come out of the shadows and move to the criminal side in order to be useful and actionable to harm the new President ( indictments, grand juries, leaks, etc ). Does everyone get that? So he would have to recuse later anyway or else what is the point of the coup at all?

    And here we have the notion that Sessions was snookered by OPR to recuse as Sundance hints in this article citing this meeting right before he recused. No, that meeting just happens to be the final visible thing you see before he recuses. Up to that point, since he first mentioned the possibility at his Jan 10 confirmation hearing to the day he recused he would have had multiple inputs of advice under consideration, including the obvious review of past recusals and all the other considerations as mentioned above. He always had security clearance as a Senator but once he was sworn in he became one of the highest cleared officials with a large need-to-know. That means since he was sworn in he was now seeing even more things that further factor into his decision, stuff we surely don;t know yet. Sessions has been a prosecutor and lawyer as long as some of those young’ins at OPR have been alive and doesn’t need them to tell him what ethics or integrity means. First of all, of course these are Obama holdovers, who do you expect to be populating DoJ one month into a new administration? Reagan appointees? Nixon, Ike? They are Obama sycophants of course and they don’t go away on January 20 unless the new President makes a bold, unprecedented move, which he did not ( and as I said earlier, with good reason ). If you think Sessions was snookered by Obama holdovers then what do you think about Trump himself, a man known for compromise and dealing and far more likely to be flexible, and give Obama holdovers a chance than Sessions ever would. This much has been proven many times since Inauguration Day. Sessions would never have hire Omarosa for example, he finds people like Stephen Miller. Sessions did not roll over for OPR hacks. That is a clear case of stating the enemy plays 64-D chess while Trump and Sessions are checkers players. Anyone who believes this cannot be expected to understand much else. Occam’s Razor would be that Sessions weighed precedent and current appearance of impropriety and made his decision thusly. That meeting cited by Sundance is merely the FINAL step in that process, when DoJ officials decide how to roll out and implement the decision, the logistics involved in disseminating the decision, and how cases get routed to either Sessions’ office, or Rosenstein’s to maintain integrity.

    But why didn’t he consult with Trump first? That answer should now be perfectly obvious don’tcha think? It wasn’t obvious back in early 2017 when all we heard about was the Russian Ambassador disinformation. The reason he mentioned recusal at his January hearing on TV rather than in private to the President-Elect was to prevent a dangerous ( for Trump ) situation of attempted obstruction and coverup. If you accept Trump tweets at face value then you must agree that the President-Elect would have absolutely attempted to get him to NOT recuse and stay and handle the very case targeting Sessions as well as Trump himself. Doing it publicly meant Trump could pull his nomination anytime he wanted and give any excuse he felt like sharing. This was the correct play. Behind closed doors would have been big trouble/ And as they were eavesdropping on Trump’s conversations at the time ( e.g., leaked oval office phone calls ) it’s a damn good thing this conversation didn’t take place because if captured it would become Exhibit-A evidence in a joint session to impeach the President in his own words. He would never survive that, ever. Anyone thinking clearly should be thanking Sessions right now for sidestepping a huge trap with the added benefit of hindsight of the numerous tweets where Trump ( if you accept them literally ) has clearly admitted it.

    And that brings us to Watergate. It was a thing. Look it up since it appears few even remember it. People who chose to ignore this historical successful coup ran by deep state hacks and the Enemedia hand-in-hand just as they are today, are the actual Mr. Magoo’s ready to blindly walk into obvious enemy traps. One error many people are making is using what we know today to make retroactive judgments on decisions made last year rather than what we knew then. In the first two months of the Trump Administration the danger was Watergate 2.0. Here is Schmuck Schumer …

    Schumer February 27, 2017 :: “Those prosecutors should not be reporting to the first senator who endorsed Donald Trump’s campaign, who served on the same campaign committee as Michael Flynn, and who nominated Donald Trump at the Republican convention,” Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer said at a press conference last week. “The Justice Departments own guidelines demand that Attorney General Sessions remove himself from this matter immediately.”

    … and that is exactly how it begins. To understand what would have occurred in the non-recusal timeline, you must forget everything that has happened since March 2017 because that timeline gets erased if Sessions does NOT recuse. What happens is that for a year there is the nightly pounding of demands for Sessions recusal, Trump’s corrupt Attorney General covering up investigation into himself and Trump. 24/7/365. Nixon/Mitchell/Trump/Sessions. 24/7/365. Where is the next John Dean? 24/7/365. What did the President know and when did he know it. 24/7/365 until they relent and appoint a special counsel anyway … or … Congress passes the next Independent Prosecutor statute and dares the President to veto it. Then what does he do? So you wind up with a special counsel or independent prosecutor anyway, but much later in the Trump Administration, probably right about now in late summer 2018, or later! So how does that factor into everybody’s sour mood? Just starting now, awesome. Kiss it all goodbye, the Trump Administration, that is. So thank Sessions once again for getting it right ethically, and as it turns out it will wrap up much earlier than it would have.

    Now here is the secret: This was their Plan-A, an ad hoc Watergate redux. That plan is short-circuited and they are on Plan-B, a coverup of their own crimes, and that is about to be short-circuited. Trump is still President and will stay that way unless he did something severely stupid like walk into a process crime ( which should have been impossible since Sessions recused ). Then we Rosenstein who appointed Mueller. Well, we have to ask a simple question right now: Are we better off with or without Mueller as special counsel? Seems to me, by accident or design this is the best outcome all around ( again, unless Trump stupidly walks into an obstruction charge which should not happen because he is not stupid ). What did we know in early 2017 about the scale of the enemy penetration at DoJ and FBI? Nothing. These people were under NSD secrecy using text messages and HAM radio and God knows what else until Mueller appeared as a bug zapper light and they self-identified, self-selected too ( as Sundance pointed out ) and populated his office to get their hoax into the criminal realm ( or else what was the entire purpose? ). So there they are. Special Counsel office of crooks in a walled garden which ironically exposed practically all currently known players starting with Strzok and those he contacted and thus began the dominoes toppling, including those tangentially connected back at main DoJ and FBI.

    To anyone who wishes for Mueller to have never been appointed, can you explain how all these people would have been located still embedded in DoJ and FBI? No-one had a freaking clue of any of this until about last summer when things started shaking loose. I’m not saying Rosenstein did this on purpose, I just don’t know and can’t even manage a guess. But by accident or design it went the exact way it should have to disassemble a deeply embedded plot. If it was an accident, then it is yet another case of the boomerang coming back and smacking the enemy right square in the head.

    What is and always has been Irrelevant is the Russia hoax, because, wait for it … it is a hoax. Trump is innocent, the (D)ummies are guilty. It cannot touch Trump after the recusal since the path to obstruction and coverup between Sessions and Trump was disconnected. The only way Trump gets bitten by that snake is if he does something post-recusal we don’t know about and that would be stupid, and he is not stupid. Yep, some bit players with shady past troubles will be exposed and temporarily inconvenienced but they are big boys, they’ll survive [***]. What won’t survive are the coup plotters who forged ahead with abandon to help Mueller and thereby identifying themselves for Trump and everyone else to see.

    [***] Another fun fact for those crying about Sessions being responsible Manafort and Cohen for some reason. Do you actually believe the President’s Attorney General should intervene and protect the “President’s friends” by springing them from their criminal matters? Absurd. But does anyone remember Susan McDougal, Bill Clinton’s partner-in-crime in Whitewater but jailed by Ken Star prosecutors for contempt or similar spending several years in jail, it was quite an ordeal often seen on national TV and actually far worse than Manafort or Cohen ( so far ). Note that Janet Reno or Jamie Gorelick or Eric Holder did not intervene in that case which is a close, near equivalent to this nonsense of demanding Sessions intervene. It is simply ludicrous to even suggest it because it falls right back on the President’s head whether he has anything to do with it or not. [ Ironically, Bill Clinton ended up pardoning Susan McDougal on his last day in office. Trump will not wait that long, at least for Manafort, if he needs it ).

    Liked by you and 4 other people

    • Louis Genevie says:

      This post was and if not, certainly could have been written by a deep state plant. Sorry, I don’t buy one sentence of it. Recusal is a personal decision and Sessions never had to make it. That is the basic fact. And without that recusal, we would have a real AG who would clean the disgusting muck out of the DOJ and FBI. And we would not have a Special Counsel breathing down the President’s back for more than two years. Mr. Sessions is not stupid, so one must ask why did he turn his back on the President and walk away from his duties? What does the Deep State have on him?


      • Cuppa Covfefe says:


        Sessions was involved with President Trump’s campaign, therefore he HAD to recuse.
        This was covered here extensively (and repeatedly) the last two years. You seem new here; the search engine is your friend.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Blade says:

        Louis, the only thing you actually got right in your comment was that recusal is a personal thing. And only people with integrity will do it even though everyone, even those without integrity swear the same oath. Your logic means to throw the oath out and your comment implies that is what you would personally do. At least you kinda admit it. So there’s that.

        The main error you make is with your theory of loyalty. Like it or not, and you probably don’t, the Attorney General is the AG for the USA, not the President. All of us, every single one including (D)ummies. He does NOT work for the President anymore than the SecTreas does, or SecDef or SecState or any other random executive branch official save for a few personal appointees like Chief Of Staff.

        Do you think there is attorney-client privilege between AG and Prez? You would be wrong. Not for criminal matters just executive privilege for a few things. He is the government lawyer, not the President’s. He has his own White House counsel office and his own personal lawyers too. He is so far removed from loyalty that you have no idea, especially given our history with Watergate and countless other defining events. Whoever stuck it in your mind that he is Trump’s loyal servant lied to you. Get it out of your mind to have a better chance at understanding current events.

        Here’s a question. PART-1 … If you are Attorney General, and “your” President asks you to break the law somehow what would you do when asked about it by someone perhaps Congress, FBI, special counsel? Don’t duck the question, it is very serious and informative. Now either you admit you will be corrupt and protect him, or you say you will be truthful to your oath. It is one or the other though.

        PART-2 … Now revisit the recusal matter of Sessions deciding whether or not to speak with Trump behind closed doors with that in mind. He did exactly what a good honest lawyer does. He gave him an out ( announced recusal possibility at hearing, Trump can pull his resignation no questions asked ) , but without exposing Trump to a huge criminal opportunity which we now know according to his own tweets he would have blundered into. If those tweets are true ( Sessions did not consult Trump ) then Sessions cannot be a witness in Mueller or Congress investigation as Exhibit-A first-party evidence of attempted obstruction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s