Christopher Wray Jeff Sessions


Christopher Wray and Jeff Sessions

FOX NEWS - Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday sided with his successor, Bill Barr, over FBI Director Christopher Wray in describing bureau surveillance of Trump associates during the
2016 presidential campaign as “spying.”

Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” when describing the reported FBI surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Barr has said [he believes “spying” did occur on the  2016 Trump campaign] while FBI Director Wray said [he wouldn’t use the word “spying” to describe the FBI’s surveillance activity.]
When asked about the recent split between Barr and Wray over the word, Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said “I think spying is a perfectly good word.” This he said during an on-stage interview at the SALT Conference in Las Vegas, which is hosted by Anthony Scaramucci, a former member of the Trump administration’s communications team.

On Tuesday, Wray testified to a budget panel that he would not use the word “spying.” 
“That’s not the term I would use,” Wray testified. “To me the key question is making sure it’s done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. That’s the key question; different people use different colloquial phrases.”
WASHINGTON EXAMINER - Former FBI Director James Comey, who led the bureau when it opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, said “the FBI doesn’t spy, the FBI investigates.”
Following revelations that the FBI sent an undercover agent to meet with George Papadopoulos in London in 2016, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper conceded that what the FBI had been doing “meets the dictionary definition of spying.”
Sessions also noted that FBI’s use of undercover agents could be considered spying, adding that he wants to see more facts come out.

My love for politics is unusual because I don't love it for the same reasons a lot of people do. I love politics because it challenges me. For me, being involved in politics isn't about having an opinion about every issue. It is about learning both sides of each issue and being fascinated by them. There are very few political issues that I have strong opinions on. The rest I either have yet to educate myself on or I understand both sides and have yet to choose which one I agree with.


  1. It is actually even worse , because Mueller himself was one of the creators of the plan to take Trump down . Mueller created this in 2004 when he was director of the Fbi , they assumed that he would run in 2008 for the presidency. Trumps newborn son prevented this. Thats why Sessions had to recused himself in such deceiving way ,without informing the president , instead he waited till Trump was abroad to be able to install Mueller without any possible interference by the president . Only Mueller could investigate this . In this way they were able to prevent that the Russian interference was exposed to be a hoax . Mueller knew all the ins and outs from this operation and what was more important he knew all other participants which were infiltrated over the years into trumps proximity. Only he was able to coverup this operation and keep the russian interference upright. All the members of his team where therefore also actually operators in this entire intell operation.

  2. (Special Counsel to the President) Emmett Flood's letter to AG William Barr is devastating in its destruction of the Mueller Report:
    " … The SCO Report suffers from an extraordinary legal defect: it quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law.

    Lest the Report's release be taken a
    "precedent" or perceived as somehow legitimating the defect, I write with both the President and FUTURE PRESIDENTS in mind to make the f'ollowing points c]ear.

    I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO concluded that the evidence "prevented it from conclusive]y determining that no criminal conduct occurred." SCO Report v.2, p.2.

    But "conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred" was NOT the SCO's assigned task, because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

    What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to retum an indictment or decline to charge the case.

    When prosecutors decline to charge, they make that decision NOT because they have ''conclusively determined that no criminal conduct occurrcd," but rather bccause they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of"exonerating" investigated persons.

    In the American justice system, innocence is presumed; there is NEVER any need for prosecutors to "conclusively determine" it.

    Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove "conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred …''
    ( )

    It appears that Giuliani's 87-page rebuttal was not necessary after all:

    DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *