Something has been going on with Robert Mueller’s investigation of people thought to have played significant roles in the Trump-Russia affair. The special counsel, assigned to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” has been farming out seemingly important parts of the investigation to offices outside his own.
In April, Mueller referred an investigation of close Trump associate Michael Cohen to federal prosecutors in New York. This month, the U.S. attorney in Washington — not Mueller — indicted Maria Butina on charges of being an unregistered Russian agent. And also this month, when Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign offices, he immediately turned the case over to the Justice Department’s National Security Division for prosecution.

Cohen is a key figure in theories of Trump-Russia collusion. In former British spy Christopher Steele’s notorious dossier, Cohen was accused of holding secret talks with Russian officials in August 2016 to discuss “how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow’s secret liaison with the TRUMP team more generally.”
If that’s not collusion, nothing is. Such activities, if they occurred, would be at the center of Mueller’s jurisdiction. And yet Mueller handed Cohen off to the Southern District of New York.
Butina figures in theories that a wealthy Russian banker “illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency,” in the words of a McClatchy report from January.
Again, such activities, if they actually took place, would clearly be in Mueller’s bailiwick.
Finally, the indictment of the 12 Russian intelligence agents goes to the very heart of Russian attempts to interfere with the U.S. presidential campaign, the investigation of which is Mueller’s responsibility. Yet once Mueller indicted them, he handed the case over to the Justice Department.
What is going on? I asked a few former federal prosecutors if they saw any messages in Mueller’s moves. The take-away: These aren’t encouraging developments for those longing for a big collusion/conspiracy/coordination indictment from Mueller.
“I think it proves that little, if any, of what Mueller’s team has generated so far is linked to the special counsel’s mandate,” said Former Prosecutor 1. “Everything that is public so far could, should and typically is handled by either United States Attorney offices of jurisdiction, National Security Division attorneys or even Criminal Division attorneys at main Justice.”
“I think Mueller doesn’t have anything on collusion,” said Former Prosecutor 2. “I think we would have seen it. I don’t see anything that looks like there’s a crime lurking — maybe he’s got eight indictments under seal, but to me, it makes no sense. All of this says to me there is no there.”
Former Prosecutor 3 said the investigations passed off indicate the subject matter is “outside (Mueller’s) jurisdiction.”
Some former prosecutors drew a distinction between the Cohen and Butina cases, in which Mueller handed off the investigation to others, and the 12 Russians case, in which Mueller made the indictment himself and then handed off the prosecution. That could be because Mueller realized that his team, staffed with investigators, could not manage a complex prosecution in the courtroom.
“They don’t have the bandwidth to handle a highly technical case like that,” said Former Prosecutor 2. From Former Prosecutor 3: “Good investigators aren’t good litigators, and very often the best courtroom lawyers aren’t the best subject matter experts.”
It has been widely observed that there is no way the 12 Russians — government intelligence officers located in Russia — will ever come to the United States for trial. “There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom,” Andrew McCarthy, another former federal prosecutor, wrote in National Review. “The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation.”
Other legal types, including yet another Justice Department veteran, said moving the 12 Russians’ case to a highly secretive part of the department is a good way to make the case disappear. “If Mueller kept it in his office, people would ask what’s going on with the case,” said the veteran. “But when he gives it to the National Security Division, it falls off the face of the earth. It’s a way of burying it.”
Taken together, none of that points to the big collusion/conspiracy/coordination indictment of Resistance dreams. Such an indictment might still be on the way, of course — no one on the outside has a full picture of what is going on inside Mueller’s office — but the signs don’t seem to be pointing toward it.
Finally, all the handed-off cases raise questions about whether a special prosecutor was needed at all. Mueller clearly felt there was no need for a special prosecutor to pursue Cohen or Butina — and one could argue that the Butina case, at least, was closer to Mueller’s core mission than the Paul Manafort prosecution. And if the 12 Russians matter, a case that goes to the heart of the Trump-Russia affair, can be fairly tried by DOJ prosecutors, it’s reasonable to ask: Why was a special counsel appointed in the first place?
© 2018, Universal

Fritz Schroeder was buried with eight other German soldiers

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has started a two-day visit to Romania and Bulgaria with a visit to the grave of his father.Mr Schroeder never knew his father, Fritz Schroeder, a soldier who died fighting in Romania in 1944.
The location of the grave was first discovered three years ago, but previous planned visits were cancelled.
This is a deeply emotional event for Mr Schroeder, who grew up without even knowing where his father had died.
The chancellor’s sister tracked down the grave in the remote Romanian village of Ceanu Mare, 375 km (235 miles) north-west of Bucharest.
The area was cordoned off to the public on Thursday as Mr Schroeder’s entourage arrived.
The chancellor was greeted by an Orthodox priest and an Eastern Rite Catholic priest at the church.
He was given a round loaf of bread and a wreath of mauve flowers as a symbol of grief, before walking inside the church grounds with Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase.
Pride
Mr Schroeder’s father, an unskilled labourer, is buried in a collective grave with eight other soldiers in the Orthodox cemetery.

Schroeder has said he felt no ill effects from being fatherless

The grave is marked with a carved wooden cross and a black marble plaque listing the names of the nine soldiers.Drafted into the German army in 1940, he was killed on 4 October, 1944 aged 32, along with his comrades as they were retreating.
Many local people gathered in the village to discuss the visit. Some raised concerns that the chancellor may want his father’s body dug up and repatriated.
Local farmer Ion Valean, 73, told the Associated Press news agency: “We are proud that the father of a head of state is buried here. We are also happy that they paved the roads.”
A stretch of about 18km (11 miles) were asphalted in 2001 when Mr Schroeder had first planned to visit his father’s grave.
That trip was cancelled following the 11 September attacks in the US, but Mr Nastase extended the invitation on a visit to Berlin last year.
The BBC’s Ray Furlong says that since the discovery of the grave, the chancellor has been asked whether growing up without a father affected him psychologically.
He responded that he did not know, but that he had not felt any ill effects.
Mr Schroeder’s visit to the region will resume official duties with political talks in Bucharest, followed by a working visit to Bulgaria on the second day of his trip.

The Doctrine of Evil

To understand the Orthodox view and practice of exorcism, one must know the Orthodox presuppositions of evil and its doctrine of Satan. The patristic evidence points to the fact that the cause of evil in the world is the devil. The devil was created by God as an angel, who was free, and as a free agent chose to oppose the plan of God. That is, the devil is a fallen angel. Satan is not evil by nature, but by will and action. In Satan there is no truth whatsoever; he is absolute falsehood and deception. Satan is not just a negation or deprivation of good, but a positive force with free will that always chooses evil. The devil has the ability to recognize divine power, as in the incident of recognizing Christ as the Son of God (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-3). Satan has under his leadership legions and invisible powers, with their own “satanic teachings.” The devil and evil spirits know that God exists and recognize true and devoted Christians, but pious Christians discern the plans of the devil. The devil, however, constantly employs every method of deception to enslave man to satanic forces and causes rebellion against God. He is the cause of corruption and disorder, a parasitic power in the world that will ultimately be destroyed by the power of God in the “last days.” Because there is no compromise between God and the devil, the struggle will continue until the end.
The Orthodox doctrine of God is that He is eternal, uncreated and incorporeal. All other creatures, both visible and invisible, were created by God as free. The power of the devil will ultimately be destroyed by the resurrection of the dead and the renewal of creation. Salvation from all evil will be attained by obedience to God and His plan. This world is a battleground between the acceptance of good and evil. It must be pointed out that the world as the creation of God is not evil. What is evil is the satanic power, destroyed by the power of the cross and the resurrection of Christ.

The Orthodox Tradition of Exorcising

After examining the doctrine of Satan in the Orthodox Church, it is imperative to proceed to the method of repelling and exorcising the evil powers. In the New Testament, Christ sent out His apostles to heal and to “cast out devils” (Matt. 10:8, Luke 10:17-20). Christ Himself often expels demons from the possessed (Mark 1:23-27; Luke 4:33-35, 9:43; Matt. 10:1; Mark 16:17; Matt. 7:22). The New Testament, however, rejected popular uses of magic incantations and rites to expel the satanic powers from people, because they took advantage of superstitious religiosity (Acts 19:13).
In the name of Christ, one is able to cast out demons and to destroy the evil powers (Matt. 10:8). The Fathers of the Church accepted this doctrine and expanded on it. Justin Martyr (Apology 85, 2) says that in the name of Christ, the Son of God who was crucified and rose again, every demon that is exorcised is defeated and submits (Library of the Greek Fathers and Church Writers, Athens: Apostolike Diakonia 1955, Vol. 3, pp. 288-89). The satanic powers are destroyed through the power of the cross and the name of Christ. Objects possessed by demons, when exorcised in the name of the living God, are freed from the possession of evil. The patristic evidence is abundant in the belief in possession and expulsion of the devil by the power of the word of God (Ignatios, Epistles to Philippians 3 and 12; Library of the Greek Fathers and Church Writers, Vol. 2, pp. 333 and 336; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4:14; Library, Vol 8, p. 82; Origen, Against Celsus, 6:44; Library, Vol. 10, p. 93).
The demonic possession of individuals and even of objects, has been accepted by the Orthodox Church today in the Sacrament of Baptism, in exorcising satanic powers in the case of the evil eye (vaskania), and in exorcising the devil in the case of a possessed person. In the early Church exorcisms were performed by a person especially trained and appointed to pray to drive out evil from those about to be baptized. Since the fourth century the place of the exorcist, as well as other functions and ministries, have been taken over by the priest. The exorcisms are prayers that invoke God to expel evil spirits. The priest prays to expel all evil, the spirit of error, of idolatry, of covetousness, of Iying and every impure act that arises from the teachings of the devil. The renunciation of the devil in baptism is used in every baptism that is performed in the Orthodox Church.

Vaskania

The exorcism of satanic powers is also performed by the Orthodox Church in other rites, such as that of the evil eye (vaskania).
Vaskania is simply a phenomenon that was accepted by primitive people as fact. They believed that certain people have such powerful feelings of jealousy and envy, that when they looked on some beautiful object or individual it brought destruction. Vaskania is recognized by the Church as the jealousy and envy of some people for things they do not possess, such as beauty, youth, courage or any other blessing. The Church essentially rejected Vaskania as contradicting the concept of divine providence. The prayers of the Church to avert the evil eye are, however, a silent recognition of this phenomenon as a morbid feeling of envy. The Church forbids people to go to “readers” or other individuals for use of magical rituals to overcome the evil eye. These readers take advantage of the weakness of superstitious people and destroy them spiritually and financially by playing upon their imagination.
There is also a secret rite performed by superstitious people to avert the evil eye, which verges on magic. Though the Church encourages even the laity to pray and exorcise evil, it rejects magical practices and rites. This secret rite is described as follows: “The exorcist (not a priest but an old woman) prepares a vial of olive oil and a small glass of water. She dips a finger in the oil, rubs it in a sign of the Cross on the victim’s forehead and lets one drop fall onto the water; she repeats the process, making a cross on the forehead, on the chin and both cheeks. If the devil is indeed present, the four drops of oil in the water join to form the ellipsoid shape of an eye. The ritual then calls for the reading of prayers and repeating the four signs of the Cross; the drops of oil will not join in the water, but will disperse.”
The possession of individuals by the devil and demonic powers and the cure in the name of Christ is evidenced in the New Testament (Acts 3:2-8, 9:32-42; 20:7-12; Matt. 10:8; Mark 16:17-18). The Church continues in its liturgical rites what Christ enacted in His ministry. The Church recognizes the influence of evil and renounces it in the name of Christ in prayers and fasting. The prayers of exorcism in the early Church were offered by special ministry through the exorcist. This is evidenced from the early prayers that have survived. From the fourth century onwards, the ministry of the exorcist has been fulfilled by the priest.

Orthodox Prayers of Exorcism

All the Orthodox prayer books include prayers of exorcism used by priests to fight the power of evil. The Orthodox Book of Prayers (Euchologion To Mega) includes three prayers of exorcism by Saint Basil and four by Saint John Chrysostom. They are read “for those who suffer from demonic possessions and every other malady.” Through these prayers, the devil is exorcised (renounced) “in the name of God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ, and commanded to come out of the victim, who is liberated and redeemed by the eternal God from the energies (powers) of the impure spirits. The great ills that humanity suffers are attributed to the devil and demonic power.”
From the Orthodox theological point of view, the following can be considered exorcists:

1. Christ is the exorcist par excellence for it is He who won the victory over the power of the devil.
2. Priests in the performance of the holy sacraments and in preaching the word of God follow Christ’s example.
3. All Orthodox Christians are exorcists as they struggle against personal sin and social evil. In fact, “the whole Church, past, present and future, has the task of an exorcist to banish sin, evil, injustice, spiritual death, the devil from the life of humanity.” Archbishop Iakovos, in a sermon at the Sage Chapel, Cornell University, spoke on exorcism in the following manner: “Both healing and exorcising are ministered through prayers, which spring from faith in God and from love for man…. All the prayers of healing and exorcism, composed by the Fathers of the Church and in use since the third century, begin with the solemn declaration: In Thy Name, O Lord.’ ” (Exorcism and Exorcists in the Greek Orthodox Tradition, March 10, 1974.)

In summary, the four prayers of exorcism by Saint John Chrysostom and the three of Saint Basil ask in the name of God to deliver the possessed from the captivity of the devil. Some can be healed by faith accompanied by fasting and purification. The use of exorcism must be made with discretion and great care. (For details, see G. Papademetriou, “Exorcism and the Greek Orthodox Church,” in Exorcism Through the Ages, New York: Philosophical Library, 1974.)

Президент России Владимир Путин и патриарх Московский и всея Руси Кирилл открыли памятник святому равноапостольному князю Владимиру на Боровицкой площади в Москве.
Кроме того, в церемонии приняли участие председатель российского правительства Дмитрий Медведев, мэр Москвы Сергей Собянин, министр культуры Владимир Мединский и президент Фонда Солженицына Наталия Солженицына.

— Поздравляю с открытием памятника Святому равноапостольному князю Владимиру! Это большое, значимое событие и для Москвы, и для всей нашей страны и для всех наших соотечественников, — подчеркнул Владимир Путин.
Он добавил, что открытие памятника в День народного единства является символичным. По словам президента, крещение Руси стало “общим духовным истоком для народов России, Белоруссии, Украины, заложил нравственные ценностные основы, которые определяют нашу жизнь и поныне”.
Российский лидер также отметил, что долг современных россиян — “вместе противостоять современным вызовам и угрозам, опираясь на духовные заветы, на бесценные традиции единства и согласия идти вперед, обеспечивая преемственность нашей тысячелетней истории”.
В свою очередь, патриарх Московский и всея Руси Кирилл освятил памятник.
— Если бы Владимир думал так же, как наши некоторые современники, он никогда бы не сделал свой выбор, он бы остался язычником или стал бы христианином лично, но не крестил бы Русь, тогда не было бы ни Руси, ни Российской православной державы, ни Российской империи, ни современной России. Он искал не пышных богослужений или душевный комфорт, которые дает нередко религия, он искал истину с большой буквы и нашел и полюбил образ Христа и в святом крещении познал его как свет, истину и жизнь, — подчеркнул патриарх.
Высота монумента составляет 17,5 метров, а вес — 300 тонн. Созданием памятника занимался скульптор Салават Щербаков. Установка памятника была согласована с “ЮНЕСКО”, та как статуя находится в непосредственной близости от территории Кремля.
“ВМ” ВЕДЕТ ТРАНСЛЯЦИЮ ПРАЗДНИЧНЫХ МЕРОПРИЯТИЙ
ЧИТАЙТЕ ТАКЖЕ
Владимир Путин и патриарх Кирилл 4 ноября откроют памятник князю Владимиру в Москве
В пятницу, 4 ноября, президент России Владимир Путин и патриарх Московский и всея Руси Кирилл откроют на Боровицкой площади памятник святому равноапостольному князю Владимиру. (далее..)

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
When President Trump first tweeted about Trump Tower wiretaps, imagine if James Comey had told us the full truth at that time. If we knew then everything we have learned in the past several months, things might have been very, very different. 
The day is Monday, March 6, 2017. Donald J.Trump, less than two months into his presidency, has just turned the mainstream media into a whirling dervish of frenzied maniacs due to a series of tweets accusing President Barack Obama of “wiretapping” Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential election.
FBI Director James Comey (who was also FBI Director under Obama) has called an impromptu press briefing at the Justice Department to address these accusations.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I appreciate you all assembling here for an impromptu press conference. I must admit, that although I am merely a humble law enforcement officer interested only in truth, justice, and the American way, I’ve begun to enjoy the attention and hubbub surrounding these chaotic media events.
“As you know, this weekend President Trump released a series of statements via the social media platform known as Twitter. (On a side note, I have a Twitter account but I have kept it secret for quite some time. I won’t reveal it until later this month but check it out. My secret handle is Reinhold Niebuhr – a theologian I wrote a senior thesis on in college – and I follow CNN, David Ignatius, and the Onion!) But, enough about me (for now) let’s get back to Trump’s tweets.
“The president tweeted the following:
“Now, let me be clear: President Obama did not order Donald Trump’s wires to be tapped in Trump Tower. The FBI did not tap the wires at Trump Tower. Period. We did not do that.
“Here’s what we did do.
“We had several FISA warrants on people associated with the Trump campaign. The first was onTrump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort surrounding an investigation dating back to 2014.
“The second was against Carter Page. Now this one is really interesting. That ‘Russian Dossier’ you were all going crazy about in January, right after I secretly briefed President-elect Trump about one of the salacious and unverified stories it contained? (If I recall, you learned about that secret briefing from former DNI James Clapper. He illegally leaked that to you guys at CNN, right? Hi Manu! I see you over there!) Well, that dossier, which was and still is unverified, it was the main evidence we presented to the secret FISA court for the Page surveillance.
“Here’s the really amazing thing about that dossier though. It turns out it was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign!  I know, can you believe it? We took a piece of campaign opposition research and we re-packaged it as ‘evidence’ to get a court to authorize surveillance of an American citizen connected to the Trump campaign! But, we did NOT ‘wiretap Trump Tower.’ We did not do that.
“Of course, there was other evidence in the FISA warrant. Well, kind of. We used an article in Yahoo News, (hey there, Michael Isikoff, let’s have coffee after this!) as well as a letter from former Minority Leader Harry Reid as evidence justifying the surveillance. Sounds pretty solid, right? But, here’s the thing… the Isikoff article and the Reid letter were all based on that same Clinton-financed, unverified dossier. So, really it was all the same piece of dubious evidence we used.
“Here’s another thing you need to know about that dossier (I think you should know everything we know considering it was so central to the surveillance and our investigation.) Even though the information in the dossier was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 agent, the actual source information was a bunch of anonymous Russians connected to Vladimir Putin. We here at the FBI, we never interviewed any of them ourselves and we don’t even know who most of them are. But, we trust Steele. That should be enough for a warrant to spy on an American citizen though, right?
“Oh! Speaking of spying… well, to be totally accurate, speaking of ‘confidential human informants,’ we had one of those checking out people on the Trump campaign too! Yeah! We paid a bunch of money to a guy who flew George Papadopoulos to London under false pretenses. He pretended to want an article from Papadopoulos and paid him several thousand dollars. But, it was all a lie. He was really secretly trying to get information from him about the Trump campaign and any connections they might have to Russians. He then fed any information he got back to us at the FBI.
“Now, I know that sounds like spying, but I assure you it isn’t. It’s using a confidential human informant. Totally different thing, OK?
“I believe that completely addresses the allegation that ‘Obama wiretapped Trump Tower,’ right?
“But, you know what? Here’s the thing. Earlier today The Weekly Standard called for complete and total transparency from me and the Justice Department on this issue. They consider the president’s accusations to be a potential constitutional crisis. I love the Weekly Standard. Read it every week. Bill Kristol and I… we’re like two peas in a pod. In the spirit of total transparency, I have a few more things I want to tell you.
“So, stick around, grab a cup of coffee, and relax. Because there was a lot going on here at the FBI during the 2016 election that goes well beyond ‘wiretapping Trump Tower‘ (which we did not do.)  I have much more to tell you.”
Read Part Two here…

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
When President Trump first tweeted about Trump Tower wiretaps, imagine if James Comey had told us the full truth at that time. If we knew then everything we have learned in the past several months, things might have been very, very different. Read part one, here.  
It’s March 6, 2017, and FBI Director James Comey is giving a full briefing to the media about the actions of the FBI in relation to the 2016 presidential election.
“You all have your coffee? Great! Hey there, Laura Jarrett! Tell your mom, Valerie I said ‘Hi!’  Boy do we at the Justice Department miss her!
“OK. Let’s recap. I just finished addressing President Trump’s tweet regarding surveillance activity on people connected to his campaign in 2016.
“We had several FISA warrants on people from the Trump camp. One of them, against Carter Page, was justified by using the unverified, Clinton-financed opposition research known as the ‘Steele Dossier.’ We also had a confidential human source (you might call him a spy) secretly trying to get more Trumppeople to reveal things to us about their connections with Russia.
“So spying, electronic surveillance, use of Clinton-financed Russian campaign propaganda… everyone up to speed? OK. Now, in the spirit of full transparency, there’s more you need to know.
“One more thing you need to know about the investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia: The FISA surveillance and the confidential human source and all the investigating we were doing… well, we kept it all from Congress.
“Yeah, you see usually we would tell the ‘Gang of Eight’ (the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders plus the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) every couple of months about these things. It’s called ‘constitutional oversight.’ We are supposed to tell these folks about activities like this so the FBI and DOJ don’t abuse the powers we have. You don’t want us to go off and spy on Americans for political purposes, do you?
“Well, the fact is we didn’t tell them anything about any of this for about nine months.
“Also, I’d like you to meet Peter Strzok. Don’t be shy Peter, step forward. Peter is a very important figure in our Counterintelligence Division. He was in charge of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized, unsecured email server (remember that?) and he also headed up the investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia.
“Now here’s something you need to know about Peter: He hates Donald Trump. I mean, he hates him. And he’s not shy about it. You should see the stuff he texts about him. And he is always texting. The guy is like one of my teenagers with the texting. Always on the phone texting. You’d think he had a girlfriend or something.
“Anyways, Peter hates Trump, loves Hillary and he was in charge of the Hillary email investigation. He even interviewed Hillary. Peter has been so helpful in this whole thing. He advised me early on to change my assessment of the use of this unsecured server from ‘gross negligence’ to ‘extremely careless.’ That may seem small, but it was huge. Kept me from recommending criminal charges against Hillary right in the middle of the campaign.  Huge.
“Peter then shifted from the email thing to setting up those FISA taps on Carter Page and setting up those folks to spy on the Trump people… er.. not a spy (sorry, easy mistake to make.) I mean, those confidential human sources.  You know… potato/poTAHto.
“Peter’s a super overachiever though. He also interviewed Michael Flynn in the first couple days of Trumps’ presidency. You know that interview that was instrumental in Flynn stepping down from the NSC? There may be more headlines coming out of that interview… don’t want to spoil it now. Stay tuned.
“Back in 2016 when Peter was overseeing all this important stuff (Hillary emails, Trump Russia, etc.) he was talking about ‘stopping’ Trump from being elected. He talked about having an ‘insurance policy’ in case he did get elected. He worried about being too tough on Hillary when he interviewed her because, after all, she was going to be the president.
“In retrospect, knowing all the anti-Trump, pro-Hillary stuff he was saying, maybe he shouldn’t have been in charge of these investigations, but come on, you reporters all hate Trump and that doesn’t affect how you do your job, right?
“Peter worked with my number two guy, Andrew McCabe. Say ‘Hi’ Andy. Andy’s wife ran for office last year and got about half a million bucks from Gov. Terry McAuliffe (an old friend of Hillary‘s) for her campaign. She got that money while Andy was overseeing the email investigation. You know all this already because Andy leaked it all to you, right? I think that may have been against the rules for him to leak that though. I hope if he’s ever asked about it, he tells the truth.
“So, where are we… Peter hates Trump, loves Hillary. Andy’s wife running on the Hillary party ticket in Virginia and getting tons of cash from Hillary World. What else? Well, let’s just say, most of us up here on the seventh floor hate Trump.
“Lisa Page, she works with Andy, she’s also a really, really, really, really, really close friend of Peter’s. She hates Trump. A bunch of others here hate him. Heck, I’ll admit it: I hate Trump too.
“In fact, check this out, from the first meeting I ever had with Trump, I’ve been writing memos about what happened in those encounters. Someday I might leak these memos (I mean if Andy can leak, why can’t I?) but only if Trump fires me. Hold that thought, ok?
“Now, I can tell by your faces that some of you are kind of shocked by all this. (To be honest, only those who we haven’t been talking too on background over the past year are shocked, still…)  But you really shouldn’t be shocked. This is just how business gets done in DC.
If you look at the big picture on this, it’s not that bad:

• People in major decision-making power at the FBI and DOJ openly hate Trump and love Hillary
• We worked together to soften our assessment of Hillary’s illegal use of an unsecured email server with confidential information on it
• We used Clinton-financed, unverified opposition research from anonymous Russians to obtain a FISA warrant on an American citizen connected to the Trump campaign
• Some of us texted each other thousands and thousands of times about our hate of Trump and about insurance policies and stopping Trump from winning the election, while all this was going on
• We hired a guy to fly one of the Trump advisors to London and pay him thousands of dollars under false pretenses so we could secretly obtain information about the campaign’s dealings with Russians (you may call that spying but why quibble over words?)
• My second in command leaked stuff to the media (he claims I approved it, I say I didn’t, someone is lying)
• I kept notes on all my meetings with Trump so I could either trap him in a lie or inspire a special counsel investigation on him which could lead to impeachment (I never liked Trump, did I mention that?)

“All of that has been happening here at the FBI over the past year.
“But we did NOT ‘wiretap Trump Tower‘ as President Trump suggested in his tweet this weekend.
Now, are there any questions?”
Of course, James Comey never gave this press conference and never revealed all of the things that were going on at the FBI under his watch. Instead, he preened and played the victim and wrapped himself in the mantle of unassailable integrity.
In March 2017, Comey was called on to be fully transparent about any investigation into President Trump and his campaign and he refused to do so. If he had been, we would have learned all of these things.
Had he instead chosen to be transparent and reveal all of the things we have learned since then, do you think the media narrative in the early months of the Trump presidency might have been different? Do you think the Trump Administration and Congress would have acted differently? Do you think we ever would have had a special counsel named?

Have you ever dreamed of becoming a detective? Do stories about Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot and maybe even Ice-T from Law & Order SVU make you wonder if you have what it takes?
We spoke to two former detectives to find out what skills a detective needs. Duncan McNab is a former detective and private investigator turned journalist and true crime author. His latest book Roger Rogerson was released in late 2016.
Belinda Neil is a former police detective, homicide investigator and hostage negotiator. She is also the author of the best-selling memoir, Under Siege and an inspirational speaker.

Presented by Sherlock, only on Stan. Watch every episode including the new season fast-tracked same day as the UK. Stan offers unlimited access to first-run exclusives, award-winning TV Shows and blockbuster movies for $10 per month.

---

Passion

‘Hard’ is an understatement when it comes to being a detective. You have to be dedicated and truly want to do the job.
“I’m appalling nosey and inquisitive,” laughs Duncan McNab. “I like to find out everything I can. I’m always intrigued by things I want to know. To be a detective, whether it’s in the police force or private practice, you really have to want to find things out. You get up in the morning and the first thing you think about is where the day’s adventure is going to take you.”
He continues, “Really good detectives are utterly passionate about it. They give a damn and don’t give up. They’ll fight.”
“You talk to coppers who retired 10 or 15 years ago and they still carry with them that passion to see justice on a case they have ever been able to fully resolve.”

---

Gut Instinct

Some call it gut instinct or a sixth sense. Others, simply the ability to read a scene. No matter what name you give it, it’s imperative to detective work.
McNab explains, “Good coppers who know their business and have the right skills and experience gain instinct. They can look at a crime and think [that] the likelihood of X being responsible is pretty good.
“What you don’t do is then try and build your evidence to support what you think. Let the evidence take you there.”
Neil agrees with this. “Gut instinct is very important but you can’t ever completely rely on it. It’s another [arrow] in our quiver, so to speak.”
“You might have a gut instinct about a particular person…but again it’s always imperative to review evidence and facts.”
McNab also details how even the most seasoned professionals can sometimes get it wrong. “Older, more experienced investigators can walk into a room and just smell if things are going to get interesting. You walk in and you know if there’s a problem.”
“On other occasions you might be meeting with someone you’re terribly apprehensive about, they might be a serious crim, and you walk out thinking, ‘That was quite pleasant actually. Nice fella! Sure he’s a terrible crook, but he’s not all that bad!'”
“I met a contract assassin once who was very pleasant, but at the same time you realise he would happily kill you if the money was right.”

---

Reading People

Similar to gut instincts, the ability to read a person’s body language is incredibly beneficial to investigators. It can help them identify suspects and draw conclusions about their cases.
But it isn’t reliable.
Someone acting suspiciously does’t necessarily mean they’re guilty.
“They may be stressed or uncomfortable , or even drug effected,” says Neil. “Sometimes a very good liar won’t give themselves away with these things.”
“That’s why it’s imperative to read the whole body language but also look at all the other evidence. These are indicators, not answers. You use them to build your suspicions and explore some more.”
McNab agrees. “Some people are remarkably fantastic liars. One thing you do learn after being around for awhile — it’s almost never that someone will tell you the whole detailed, absolutely factual truth. They always hold something back. Sometimes because they don’t think you need to know, sometimes they’re concerned about the impact on other people.”
“Take your impressions away from an interview, by all means, it’s what you have to do. But then go and do your own investigation and substantiate it.”
Neil also stresses how important self awareness is when it comes to reading a person, as it can effect how much they divulge.
“If I fold my arms, if I’m not looking at the person, or if I look at my watch the person isn’t going to think I’m interested in them. It’s not just about reading somebody else, it’s about being mindful of your own body language.”

---

Patience

Methodology is paramount to any investigation. You need to trawl through absolutely everything and not become impatient for answers — that’s when you might miss something important.
“Never ever forget to make sure your basics are absolutely rock solid, and then you build your investigation, says McNab.
“The chronology has to be right and the mechanics of what happened has to be substantiated…Be really cold about it and establish your facts.”
He continues, “It’s a hard methodical slog. You don’t dismiss things until you have a good reason to. It’s almost like accounting procedure sometimes. You have to be very precise, you don’t ignore things, you don’t assume things. Every incident needs to be investigated, wrapped up, dismissed or proceeded with.”

---

Objectivity

Being objective and analytical is equally important in an investigation. You can have to approach it with an open mind and avoid getting tunnel vision.
“Be open to other people’s ideas. Be suspicious,” says Neil
“The need to remain objective is paramount to any investigation. Facts get you the result in court. Things need to proved in evidence. That’s the bottom line.”
Duncan elaborates on this point, highlighting the need to be self critical. You don’t just investigate the crime. You investigate your own approach to it.
“You have to be brutally objective of yourself,” he surmises. “Once you’ve got everything wrapped up and think it’s good, take a step back and an objective look to make sure you haven’t made the mistakes that other people do. It happens, we’re all human.

---

Communication Skills

Investigations require talking to people. A lot of them. If you aren’t adept at flexible communication, you aren’t going to get very far.
“You have to be able to talk to kings and crooks, all levels of people,” says Neil. “Information can come from unlikely sources, you have to be able to maintain confidences.”
Heightened levels of communication were particularly necessary during her time as a hostage negotiator and undercover.
“It’s more intense in a hostage situation because it’s all about communication. If you’re talking to someone face to face, you have to be so mindful of not only trying to read the person but also of your own body language…You’re trying to read the situation while also remaining neutral because people can pick that up, even on the phone.”
She also highlights listening skills as an imperative. “It’s not about your ability to talk. You have to be able to show empathy, compassion and patience. That’s all in addition to your other skills as an investigator.”

---

Street Smarts

Like with any profession, training is a necessity. But there’s a lot about the job that can’t be learned from study.
“The formal training you get in a classroom tells you the laws, and gives you the legal framework you have to operate in. And that’s nailed into you,” McNab explains.
“As a copper and investigation leads to an arrest which leads to a court case and you need to make sure that everything is bolted down.”
“That formal training is essential, but then you build on it with experience, good mentoring and sometimes even being thrown into a situation where you have to work it out yourself and get it right.”
You learn on your feet, that’s where a lot of it comes from. You learn from everything that happens. Good investigators need to have that hands on experience working with people.”
“Both are important,” says Neil. “The experience you gain on the job is very important. But you need to know how to gather evidence properly too.”
When it comes to skills that need to be developed with experience, Neil suggests the following. “Street smarts. They’re important. The ability to think quickly, I don’t think you’ll learn that in a classroom. I’m really big on communication, that is so important, and being able to read people. That’s where you’re able to start gaining trust.”