Brennan may have set his own perjury trap: Napolitano

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 05/20/2019 02:40 PM

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New Yor...

Welcome back investigating the investigators on sending money futures. Yesterday i spoke with former house oversight committee chairman trey gowdy about the dirty dossier and the 2016 email sent by then fbi, director, jim comey watch. This take me back to an email that jim comey wrote to his upper echelon staff. This is also considered classified, but you've seen it. What can you tell us about it? ...
Well, take a half step back. I mean people use the word dossier and it has such an official sound to it. I mean, let's just call it for what it is. It'S a series of ranked hearsay, hearsay, copulations, put together by an fbi source who was later defrocked. What we'retrying to figure out is whether or not it was used a fifth time and the intelligence assessment, and you got brennan clapper and comey, while all three who know full well whether or not it was used in the intelligence assessment but they're, giving you different they're. Giving you different versions right. So there is information that exists in december of 2016 and i hope anyone who has access to it senator burr devin. Whoever is open, minded go, look at that and i think it will help you understand whether or not that dossier that unverified hearsay was used a four five times or just four times by the united states government.

It'S pretty bad, so i'll, explainthis fox news, senior judicial analyst, rajendra napolitano, was here to walk us through it. Basically, what trey gowdy was saying was there was an email which was sent by jim comey to his leading upper echelon staff, including baker and peter strike and andrew mccabe, and in that email he writes to them. Brennan is insisting the crown material being the dossier be included in the intel assessment, judge, that's different than what brennan testified. Well, you know, there's, obviously, a conflict between what one said in an email presumed it to be accurate because he's communicating to his staff and what another said retro actively under oath. So it depends on how aggressive us attorney durham in connecticutwho's the person that the attorney general of the united states bar has assigned to examine this. He used the word, examine a examine and its form carefully and explained in a minute. It depends how deep he wants to go. Is he just going to write a report of who he thinks did behaved improperly and violated the law, or is he going to use subpoena power and search warrants and grand juries and actually indict people? If he's going to do the former we're just going to go back to square one, and we will have all this bad stuff about people, but nobody will be prosecuted. If he's going to do the latter, that's what prosecutors dothey don't do, invest it. They don't do investigations to deliver reports, they do investigations to deliver indictments and if they don't have enough evidence to indict them, they leave you alone. The reason this is important is because this is fingering. John brennan and brennan has been running around the last two years.

Saying that president trump committed treason - and in fact if this email is correct, it is basically saying that it was brennan who said use the dossier in the intel assessment, and the intel assessment, of course, is the assessment that russia colluded with. I'M sorry that russia meddled in the u. s. election well, if he nothing to do with trump right, that russia medal ihaven't seen the email. Obviously. But if the email is correct, it directly contradicts what brennan said under oath, exactly, which is another thing for the folks in connecticut, to examine whether or not the former director of the cia perjured himself in order to make himself look good yeah and go ahead. To judge i mean you know william bar and you've seen his statements on this, and he just didn't interview with bill hemmer talking about, he seems like he's, going to sort of go back and get to the bottom of this. A lot of those folks who were at the fbi and the justice department they're all gone now: they're they've left well most of themhave either cut the names of the names we know are gone. That'S like a lot of you think that william bar is going to proceed with an investigation with subpoenas with indictments or do you think this will just be a report that you know comes and goes. I wish i had the confidence that you do and that maria does that this will be a serious federal criminal investigation, but i know the way law enforcement likes to protect its own. I know away the team in connecticut when they investigated cia abuse whitewash the abuse and it was there. Dianne feinstein revealed it on the floor of the on the floor of the senate, so i don'tknow where it's gon na go.

If the new york times is correct - and this is a report and not a criminal investigation leon - the organization has reported that kimberly strauss on the wall street journal reported that on friday, that it's a review and that right now a durham does not have subpoena power. So if he does not have subpoena power he's not going to get the first base, you can only conduct an investigation of this magnitude where the people you're investigating are present and former law enforcement officials who know how the system works. You'Re not going to get the first base without subpoena power and without a grand jury, because a grand jury indictment a reviewturn into an investigation, yeah yeah, but why waste the time with the review? Just do the right thing. Well, let's not forget that the congress, the house oversight committee, the house intel committee, the house judiciary committee - has done a lot of this work and has had testimony and some of its classified already that they're, basically handing over on a silver platter to bill bar right And there's more all of these informants that were going in trey gowdy also talked to me about releasing transcripts related to the investigation from the fisa courts, because we heard from george papadopolis on this program where he told us about the informants that came at him right. Those informants conversationsshould be transcribed. Watch this when an fbi agent sends in informants to someone they're looking at typically those conversations are recorded right. Those people are wired yeah, i mean if the bureau's gon na send an informant and the informants going to be wired, and if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that, and some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether Or not, those transcripts exist, but they haven't been made public and i think one in particular is going. It has the potential to actually persuade people very little on this. Russia probe, i'm afraid, is going to persuade people who hate trump or who love trump but thereis. Some information in these transcripts that i think has the potential to be a game changer, that whenever there's a wire there is a transcript. The question is: does the transcript see the light of day? What i think he also is concerned about is why this wasn't presented to the fisa court, and i've been saying this for a long time. Tom - and i have talked about this on brett bears show fisa has corrupted fbi, agents, soft warmth, corruption, if you go to a regular judge as i was, and make an application for a search warrant, present probable cause of crime.

You get the search warrant and you find evidence of crime and you prosecute theperson. The application you made. The federal judge is revealed to defense counsel and they can cross-examine the fbi agent. Why didn't you tell this to the judge? Why didn't you tell that to the judge when you go to a fisa judge and make an application for a search warrant with its lower standard? Not probable cause of crime, but probable cause are speaking to a foreign person. Call a hotel in milan to make a reservation. You qualify for a search one under fisa. That information is never shown to defense counsel, and the fbi knows that. So we may for the first time in history. In the 41 year, history of fisa see how it works andsee. How one-sided it is because this court issues, 99. 97 % of all requested search warrants there isn't a court. Huntress is so maddening.

Yes, it was peter struck and his buddies over there at the top of the fbi. Misled the fisa court. Absolutely did not tell the fisa court that this journey dossier, which was unseld invited salacious, was actually paid for by the the subject of the of the reports. Political atom enemy, hillary clinton, the reason they were able to do that is for what i just articulated. They knew with certainty that pfizer records are never revealed even if they result in. I blame peter stryker and the people who you know as pfizer has letthem do this and fisa has been, has been just become an arm of these people, jim comey. Let him do it. Jim comey even look brett bear in the eye last spring and said i don't know with certainty that the dnc and the clinton campaign paid for that dossier if you're running the fbi and getting a warrant on a member of a presidential campaign, you don't know that The information you're using you know that was lying then to brett or he was a completely ineffective fbi director. I think he knew everything that i was going on. I think any like. I think it was very effective pleasure.

Watch Next