1. You can't find what you won't look for. The @FBI sought no warrant for the Clinton laptops. Instead it negotiated and agreed not to look at the most important stuff.
2. What's the basis for the warrant? Let's see the affidavit. Is there a filter team to segregate things not related to a narrowly scoped investigation negotiated with the target's attorneys—as was done with Clinton?
3. Why the runaround on the Qs about Biden/foreign gov't bank records and the declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents?
4. Did you know about Thibault's political bias? Why are rank-and-file FBI agent concerns about political bias being censored?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. He sidelined NARA's independent watchdog on paid admin leave for 2 years, a needless waste of taxpayer money that also ensured less oversight of his agency at the time.
3. Here is Mr. Ferriero's letter to @ChuckGrassley from September 2015 responding to Qs about what he did (or didn't do) about Hillary Clinton's secret, offsite email server.
Who is the other official #whistleblowers identified, along with Thibault, as being "deeply involved" in launching DOJ's "false-electors scheme" criminal probe?
Richard Pilger, Director of the Election Crimes Branch, who has a history with Lois Lerner & IRS targeting.
Pilger contacted Lerner in 2013 asking to coordinate with the IRS on an idea from @SenWhitehouse for DOJ to "piece together false statement" cases against certain nonprofits.
3. You remember Lois Lerner.
She's the IRS official held in contempt of Congress.
And yet, @TheJusticeDept refused to even present the contempt citation to a Grand Jury, as required by statute.
3. Then, on Monday, Grassley revealed that several #whistlelowers had come forward to detail how systemic political bias infects the @FBI and @TheJusticeDept through gatekeepers like Thibault and others who decide what gets investigated and what doesn't.
From our lawsuit seeking documents about what, if anything, @TheJusticeDept has done to address the appearances of a conflict created by the hiring of a prominent Durham critic from Brookings to a senior National Security Division position:
"This remarkable email establishes that the Andersen team’s initial reaction was to suspect that SARS-CoV-2 had been engineered in a lab. Their subsequent letter doesn’t adequately explain how they overcame this impression."
"After taking one look at the horrific possibility that a lab leak origin for SARS-CoV-2 might cause virology labs all over the world to be closed down, it would seem, the Andersen team decided to disregard their first impressions of possible manipulation."
"The Jan. 31, 2020, email from Mr. Andersen shows that Dr. Fauci knew from the beginning that experts had serious suspicions about the virus’s origins."
Congress rarely gets a sympathetic ear from the judicial branch when asking to use the court’s authority rather than its own Constitutional tools to get information.
That’s especially true if the subpoenas in question were issued on a partisan basis and the partisans involved admit to CNN that their oversight is actually a political fishing expedition for presidential election purposes.