Maybe you should do some real research on the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau your lauding as so wonderful, they were not holding them accountable..

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/12/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-tragic-failures/


If you'd paid any attention over the years you'd know the FBI, CIA, DOJ had lost all credibility years ago, and not because of now President Trump--

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-22/their-lives-were-ruined-victims-cia-mk-ultra-brainwashing-plan-class-action-suit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUEidBI-zjs

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_james_clapper_he_lied_to_congress_about_nsa_surveillance.html


One of the companies Mueller has listed in his indictment of interfering in our elections, didn't even exist before the election.

Then let's look at the FBI, which helped destroy the reputation of the FBI and DOJ, and other agencies..


Federal prosecutors attempted to rig the Bundy trial by withholding exculpatory evidence--unethical, illegal, and a violation of our Constitution.

While I do not agree w/ the verbiage used in this article, the facts are these agencies were railroading this family, just as they have many others over the years..none of that has to do w/ now President Trump, these were going on long before he took office--but apparently MANY American's prefer to remain clueless of these illegal actions.

https://powderedwigsociety.com/bundy-mistrial/

the FBI’s framing of four innocent men for a murder they didn’t commit, The men were ultimately exonerated. A judge awarded $101 million in damages, two of the men died in prison.

While Hannity and others claim Mueller was involved (he may have been), but this judge doesn't make that claim, but does it matter?? Nope, given it was the department itself..thus destroying their own reputation years ago..

https://www.mediaite.com/online/federal-judge-rebukes-hannity-limbaugh-for-using-whitey-bulger-scandal-to-smear-mueller/

Just as the DOJ made their own bed of lies destroying their own reputation--again LONG Before Trump became President.


"On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. “In nearly 25 years on the bench,” he said, “I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”

It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws by failing to report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from friends. But a team of prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory evidence and knowingly presenting false evidence to the jury."

https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/october-2009-ted-stevens.cfm


A 2010 report by the Northern California Innocence Project cited 707 cases in which state courts found prosecutorial misconduct over 11 years. Only six of the prosecutors were disciplined, and the courts upheld 80% of the convictions in spite of the improprieties, the study found.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/steven-avery/

"Just yesterday, we received a fresh set of her lies. It turns out that the lead investigator on this case perjured himself under oath and lied to the court about the records he has kept, the “evidence” he has found, and the methods he has used. Let’s say that again: the lead investigator on this case—hired by the Circuit Attorney at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars to the people of Missouri—lied under oath.

At this point, it is hard to keep up with the litany of falsehoods and fictions being peddled by a weaponized prosecutor and those who help her in a full-blow, partisan political abuse of our criminal justice system. But compiling even an abridged list of the most significant and compelling lies is worth the effort. It shows the unbelievable lengths to which some will go to use the legal system to serve political ends."

http://observer.com/2018/04/the-eric-greitens-prosecutor-must-be-held-accountable-for-blatant-lies-in-this-case/

"This is the inside story of the most high-profile prosecutions of the last decade, and it’s a 5-star great mystery read on Amazon. A gruesome suicide, a likely murder, a tragic plane crash, wrongful imprisonment, and gripping courtroom scenes draw readers into this compelling story of the corrupted prosecutions of Arthur Andersen, Merrill Lynch executives, and Senator Ted Stevens. This book provides a frightening perspective on justice and who should be accountable when evidence is withheld and prosecutors break the law.

Licensed to Lie reveals the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power to the highest halls of our government. It’s terrifying–because it’s true. Just ask United States Senator Orrin Hatch, Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, “fabled” trial attorney Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, or Fox News John Stossel–to name a few. It should be required reading for every law student, lawyer, judge, politician, and concerned taxpayer."

https://licensedtolie.com/


Maybe you should do a bit more research before you make such accusations as to what the cause of their negative reputation really is..It has been cases like these that have done so, not the President calling them out as corrupt...



Again, apparently your unaware, it's been this way for many years, this is NOT because of President Trump.

March 18, 2016--(this was BEFORE Trump became President) http://fortune.com/2016/03/18/the-biggest-american-companies-now-owned-by-the-chinese/



November 5, 2015 (WOW, this was BEFORE we had President Trump too). http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-tech-companies-partner-with-firms-linked-to-chinese-military/


"U.S. technology companies are increasingly forming partnerships with firms that sell advanced equipment to the Chinese military, raising concerns among analysts that American businesses are indirectly aiding Beijing’s defenses as it assumes a more aggressive posture in regional disputes and threatens U.S. security.

In one recent example, Microsoft announced a partnership with the China Electronics Technology Group in September while President Xi Jinping visited the tech giant’s offices. The agreement will provide Windows 10 operating system technology to "Chinese users in specialized fields in government institutions and critical infrastructure state-owned enterprises," a press release said."

"As all Chinese companies are ultimately controlled by the Communist Party and are increasingly being tasked to serve the Party's demands for enhanced military power, it is time for the U.S. government to build far better tools to protect American intellectual property and security," he said."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/14/news/economy/trump-china-trade-intellectual-property/index.html

"Chinese state media have lashed out at the plans, but Trump is picking up on an issue that American businesses have been complaining about for years."

So please stop with the BS Lies, and do some real research on when these things started, because they started LONG before Trump was President..

lol Civil Service changes, they need changed, They need to be able to FIRE people who sit and watch PORN all day at work--Oh wait, you don't know about THAT either??? Or maybe your one that would lose their job??

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/02/government-cant-fire-employees-who-spend-six-hours-a-day-watching-porn/


https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/Dozens-of-Federal-Employees-Watched-Abundance-of-Porn-on-the-Job-in-Recent-Years-414743293.html

This happened to a friend of mine that lives in Central Florida, he was He told he and his friends cold not hold a bible study in their community building, and was also told he couldn't fly Old Glory on his home. He's a retired Navy Veteran, had to hire a lawyer to fight against their communist/fascist ways.

Actually, we are not a Nation of Majority Rule, which is why we have the Electoral College, Majority rule is mob rule.

Nah, they have nothing to impeach him on, and those they are talking to aren't government agents, well, except those the IG is investigating, and many of those have either been asked to resign or have been fired.

Just making a statement

All Trump would need to do is declassify everything to do w/ the investigations and have the documents released.

BWHAHAHAHAHA... "This website is an entertainment website, jokes are created by users. These are humourous jokes, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information."

lol Roger Stone---parted ways with the Trump campaign in August 2015--

lol, So what, Trump himself has not called for an end to the Special Counsel (even though legally he could). It's all rather funny as the politics plays out

Bwhahahaa...

These are actually funny...lets take a look at these things..

Van der Zwaan was charged by Mueller’s team with making false statements to investigators in an interview about his time working for a law firm hired by the Ukraine Ministry of Justice in 2012, when he helped produce a report on the trail of Ukrainian politician Yulia Tymoshenko.

Mr. van der Zwaan’s lies involved a 2012 report prepared by Skadden and used to defend Mr. Yanukovych, then the Russia-aligned president of Ukraine, from international criticism over the prosecution and incarceration of one of his political rivals, former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko. State Department officials criticized the report, which purported to be the result of the law firm’s independent research, as a misleading account of the actions of Mr. Yanukovych’s government." So nothing to do with OUR 2016 Presidential Election..(this was a case from 2012 that a judge dismissed due to lack of evidence)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-gates-russia-mueller.html


"Richard Pinedo, of Santa Paula, ran an online service called Auction Essistance, through which he bought and sold bank account numbers that would help users circumvent security measures of digital payment companies. Pinedo transferred, possessed and used the identities of other people in connection with unlawful activity, according to a statement of the offense. He pleaded guilty on February 12, according to court documents."

Doesn't appear to be associated with the Trump campaign at all...just a crime that was found during the course of the investigation..

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-pinedo-pleaded-guilty-to-aiding-russia-is-cooperating-with-mueller-2018-2

"After another revolution in Ukraine forced Yanukovych from power in 2014, the national anti-corruption bureau discovered a secret ledger of off-the-books payments from the Party of Regions; Manafort’s name appears in the document 22 times, with payments worth $12.7 million designated for him between 2007 and 2012. The indictment released on Monday in the U.S. claims Manafort and an associate laundered the proceeds of his work in Ukraine through offshore accounts, and failed to pay U.S. taxes on the income." (gee, again nothing to do w/ The 2016 US Elections) http://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukraine-russia/


Then of course there is this..where even Lindsey Graham's campaign had ties to these same individuals (Manafort and Gates)

This right here is what it all boils down too:

"In Ukraine, Ferry was part of a Davis Manafort team that advised Yanukovich, the country’s then-prime minister, whose pro-Russian party made gains in the 2006 parliamentary elections. So Ferry was lobbying for the guy the American government opposed." But even this goes back to 2006--years before OUR 2016 election..So I'm curious, are they really looking at Russian interference in OUR election or Russian interference in Ukraine's election?? And the imprisonment of a former Ukrainian President??? (which our government was asked to investigate years ago)


Manafort's indictment ***doesn't include*** explicit mention of Russian collusion or his time on the Trump campaign but **rather focuses on his Ukrainian political ties and finances.*** So again, NOTHING to do w/ the election in 2016. http://www.newsweek.com/paul-manafort-indictment-timeline-russia-probe-charges-696226

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/7/1730532/-Why-Has-Lindsey-Graham-Changed-His-Campaign-Manager-s-Connection-To-Paul-Manafort

He hasn't left the table..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFv6UG0ftmk

You mean like the Obama admin did w/ the IRS? And the FBI towards those who disagreed with them politically??

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

Brady Rule

The Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.

Further, in cases subsequent to Brady, the Supreme Court has eliminated the requirement for a defendant to have requested a favorable information, stating that the Prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose, that is triggered by the potential impact of favorable but undisclosed evidence See Kyles v. Whitley 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1955); United States. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).

The defendant bears the burden to prove that the undisclosed evidence was both material and favorable. In other words, the defendant must prove that there is a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the trial would have been different, had the evidence been disclosed by the prosecutor. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433 (1955). Bagles and Kyles Court further defined the “materiality” standard, outlining the four aspects of materiality. First, the “reasonable probability” of a different result is not a question of whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether the government’s evidentiary suppression undermines the confidence in the outcome of the trial. The second aspect is that it is not a sufficiency of evidence test, and the defendant only has to show that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine the confidence in the verdict. Third aspect is that there is no need for a harmless error review, because a Brady violation, by definition, could not be treated as a harmless error. Fourth and final aspect of materiality the Kyles Court stressed was that the suppressed evidence must be considered collective, not item by item, looking at the cumulative effect to determine whether a reasonable probability is reached. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-438.

That is what He is doing, and they are going back to old FBI files and pulling those out from the dustbin of 'no evidence' and searching for something new--It's why the judge asked for a unredacted letter sent by Rosenstein to Mueller re: the scope of his investigation.

He's wondering how and why they are bringing in information from cases back in 2006 to file charges against some of these men.

This is from February 27, 2018 (it is now May, so apparently people AREN'T Paying attention, if they are still demanding these things be 'investigated' because if they were paying attention they would know they already ARE being investigated and are more likely coming to an END, than just starting).

Earlier today Attorney General Jeff Sessions held a press briefing to announce the opioid task force (video below). During the Q&A segment of the presser, Fox News Catherine Herridge asked AG Sessions if the FISA court abuses outlined by Chairman Devin Nunes, Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Chairman Chuck Grassley would be investigated by the DOJ.

Attorney General Sessions affirms the FISA court abuse by the DOJ and FBI will indeed be investigated and prosecuted and directed attention to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. [watch at 37:57 of video – prompted]

However, this statement by Jeff Sessions IS NOT NEWS. This is exactly what those who have followed closely will note has been the direction since mid-year 2017. As AG Sessions affirms, IG Horowitz is NOT limited in scope. Horowitz is investigating *all* avenues of politicization within the DOJ and FBI and abuse therein; this includes FISA abuse.

Secondly, AG Sessions has previously stated his intention to get the DOJ back to the historic position of *not* discussing ongoing investigations. As such the response from General Sessions today is entirely in line with the two principles: 1) the IG is already investigating the FISA abuse as part of the original politicization investigation; and 2) that the DOJ supports that investigative path.

Inspector General Horowitz is already investigating the FISA abuse.

January 4th, 2018, an agreement was finally made between House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and DOJ Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for complete disclosure of all unredacted documents AND a list of witnesses who Nunes wanted the HPSCI to question.

Included in those names was: FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who exchanged anti-Trump text messages during an affair and previously worked on the special counsel’s Russia probe; FBI general counsel James Baker, who was reassigned; FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, whom ex-FBI boss James Comey testified made the decision not to brief Congress about the Russia case during last year’s election; and Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official reassigned after concealing meetings with figures involved in the dossier.

The January 4th agreement between Devin Nunes and Rod Rosenstein was made after a great deal of back-and-forth. Chairman Nunes then documented the agreement in a letter.

Who is doing the interrogations of Bill Priestap and Bruce Ohr?

It’s not the HPSCI. It’s not the House Judiciary Committee and it’s not the Senate (Chuck Grassley). [Remember Grassley is relying on responsive FD-302’s provided by the FBI.]

See where this is going?

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz has interviewed these witnesses and extracted testimony. This explains why Devin Nunes changed his approach after discussion with AAG Rod Rosenstein and was no longer in a hurry to interview the FIVE? (Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap).

The reason for this is transparently simple. The OIG is a division inside the Department of Justice. During an internal investigation if the IG becomes aware of unlawful activity he/she is obligated to inform the AG (Sessions) or AAG (Rosenstein). He can’t ignore it and he cannot delay notification of it. Unlawful activity must be reported.

The IG does not have legal or prosecutorial authority – the IG must immediately refer unlawful activity to the proper authority; essentially to his boss. A DOJ prosecutor is then assigned to work with the IG and essentially creates a parallel investigation focused only on the law-breaking part. [That prosecutor could, likely would, then begin a Grand Jury proceeding; no-one outside the AG, AAG, and that prosecutor’s office would know.] (this would not only be Session's but Huber)



https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/27/jeff-sessions-affirms-inspector-general-review-of-fisa-court-abuse-by-dept-of-justice/