Advertisements
Open post

Christopher Wray Wants to Keep the FBI’s Raging Dumpster Fire Burning

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

This guy has got to go. – Some folks just need firing, and FBI Director Christopher Wray is the poster child for that reality. The FBI was a raging dumpster fire under James Comey, and nothing has changed under the worthless apparatchik who was appointed by President Trump on the advice of Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions to succeed him.

If anything, Wray appears to want to just keep stoking the flames of that dumpster fire to higher levels, which he managed to succeed at doing with two moves late this past week.

First, Wray filed an inexcusable response to the December demand by lead FISA Court judge Rosemary Collyer (who has since resigned) that the FBI take action to prevent future abuses of the FISA warrant process. Collyer’s letter was issued in reaction to the December 11 report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which revealed massive wrongdoing by higher-ups in the Comey-era FBI in their efforts to spy on the Trump Campaign, Trump Transition Team and Trump Administration.

Wray’s proposed “solution” to the blatant abuse of process by myriad FBI officials is to…wait for it…mandate more training. Yeah, just what you’d expect from a useless bureaucrat who would be more at home in some corporate Human Resources department than in leading what is supposed to be the nation’s premier law enforcement agency.

Making matters worse, the letter sent to the FISA Court on Friday was signed by Wray and…wait for it again…utterly corrupt FBI lawyer Dana Boente, who actually signed one of the four FISA applications that was used to facilitate the Comey FBI’s spying operation. You seriously cannot make this stuff up:

As if that weren’t despicable and indefensible enough, Wray compounded this insult to basic public integrity by appointing former assistant attorney general for national security David S. Kris to oversee the FBI’s fancy new training program. Kris, if anything, is even more corrupt than Boente, a guy with Spygate basically tatooed on his forehead.

This is a guy who, in addition to being a noted Obama loyalist, is also associated with the scumbags at Lawfare, the group that has provide the contract lawyers who have planned, managed and driven the Schiff/Pelosi/Nadler impeachment scam.

As reported by the Daily Caller:

Kris was also among the many pundits dismissive of Republican allegations that the FBI mishandled information in the Steele dossier. One of Kris’s main targets was Nunes, a California Republican who relentlessly pursued information from the FBI about the Trump-Russia probe.

In his March 1, 2018, essay at Lawfare, Kris wholeheartedly defended the FBI’s actions in the Trump-Russia probe, while criticizing Nunes over a memo he released Feb. 2, 2018, laying out a list of alleged problems with the FBI’s rationale to surveil Page.

Kris asserted that Nunes “falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” He also questioned whether Nunes and other Republicans would “face any consequences for their dishonesty.”

“The Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy,” wrote Kris, who is now a consultant at Culper Partners and frequent guest on MSNBC.

Kris went as far as entertaining the possibility, first proposed by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, that “Nunes might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.”

Kris also wrote that the memo’s central claim that the FBI misled the FISC about Christopher Steele “was not true.”

Oh. Ok.

But, in a transparently fake move designed to justify receiving his assignment from Wray, Kris has had a sudden fake “change of heart”:

Kris has acknowledged since the release of the IG report that the FBI committed some “significant and serious” errors in its Carter Page FISA applications. He also conceded in a Lawfare essay published Dec. 23, 2o19, that Nunes’s assertion that the FBI engaged in irregular behavior was “correct.”

This is a blatant middle finger by Wray to President Trump, and the President understands that, as evidenced by this tweet issued on Saturday:

The President well knows that no FBI dirty cops will pay any real price so long as Christopher Wray remains ensconced as the FBI Director. Wray not only has no intention at all of putting out the agency’s raging dumpster fire, he is in fact dedicated to stoking its flames.

The only solution here is for the President to fire the man. Once this impeachment nonsense has been dealt with in the Senate, doing that needs to be Job 1 at the White House.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements
Open post

John Ratcliffe Details Why Durham Time Has Arrived

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

First, in case you missed it because it came late yesterday afternoon, my summary of the Horowitz Report and its ramifications can be found hereThe IG Report: Not a Bombshell, But a Roadmap.

GOP Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe appeared on last night’s Fox Report with Bret Baier for an 8 minute segment. Ratcliffe’s answers to Baier’s questions are very revealing on a number of counts with a scattering of real bombshells throughout. Sad that neither Baier nor anyone else in the corrupt news media is curious enough to follow up on them. Below is the clip of that interview, followed by a transcript:

 

Here’s the transcript, compiled with laborious effort for the voracious readers who typify the fan base for Today’s Campaign Update. You’re welcome.:

Baier: I want to ask you about impeachment first. Is is a foregone conclusion that the House Democrats will vote on impeachment?

Ratcliffe: Yes. It appears the Democrats have burned the lifeboats behind them. They have made this decision, they’ve got nowhere to go. I think they have to answer to their base. I think it’s a terrible decision for the American people. You can see what it’s not based on – it is entirely political. But I gotta tell you, Brett: As a Republican, It’s good for us.

Baier: Do you have any reason to believe that any of your GOP colleagues will vote for impeachment?

Ratcliffe: No. On the other hand, I can say with pretty good certainty that there will be Democrats that won’t vote to impeach the President. 

Baier: Do you think Nancy Pelosi has the votes right now?

Ratcliffe: I think she probably does. I think she won’t call the vote unless she has the votes, so I think she probably does. They’re going at breakneck speed. They’re losing support, and before they lose enough to get it across the finish line, and that’s why they want to have it next week after only being in the Judiciary Committee, the Committee of jurisdiction, for less than a week. 

Baier: What happens if your side does not get a minority day hearing, which it doesn’t look like is going to happen?

Ratcliffe: We won’t. I think it will just demonstrate to the American people how perverted this process has been, how they won’t follow any of the precedents or standards, particularly as it relates to fairness during the process.

Baier: You mentioned today, an interview with the inspector general, with the intelligence committee…it’s a little hard to follow it here on set, ahh

Ratcliffe: It’s a little cryptic, I had to be. I had to be because it still hasn’t been released by Chairman Schiff. It’s the first deposition that was taken and it’s the only one that hasn’t been released. And the reason is – it doesn’t have anything to do with protecting the whistleblower’s identity: It has to do with protecting the whistleblower and Chairman Schiff from having their credibility questioned.

The whistleblower did not make truthful disclosures to the inspector general. I questioned the IG about that – the transcript will reveal that. That ought to be made public. No one should be voting to impeach an American president before they look at the real origins of this. The origins of this was not a whistleblower filing a complaint on August 12. It was a person who later became a whistleblower walking into Chairman Schiff’s office two weeks before that.

Baier: So you have zero hope that you will hear from Adam Schiff or the whistleblower.

Ratcliffe: He wasn’t even at the hearing today. He’s been making all of the decisions behind this and he wasn’t even at the hearing today.

Baier: Ok, let’s turn to the IG report – this is the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, take a listen. [Plays a clip of Schumer lying about the IG report.] That was the top headline that the Democrats focused on in this line: “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of political bias or improper motivation.” You response?

Ratcliffe: So there’s two important things that went on here. One: Did the FBI meet the very low threshold for an articulate and factual basis to really suspect there was a threat to national security? The IG made the conclusion that they met that very low threshold to get the investigation started. The problem for the FBI and for the Democrats who want to somehow declare this as a victory is, everything after that is an indictment of the process. Even if there was a basis to open it, everything that came after it was exculpatory. There was no reason to continue it.

And the second part of this that’s really important is, when they got to the stage of a FISA application in October, as you see in here, this report is just completely full of what the IG politely says are errors and omissions. Another way of saying that is ‘lies, misrepresentations, false statements and a failure to turn over exculpatory information.

Baier: Is that what strikes you most about this report?

Ratcliffe:  Absolutely. It’s a validation of every one of us that’s been saying there was FISA abuse. It’s why the Attorney General’s statement today was, ‘this is clear evidence of FISA abuse.’ Unfortunately, we were right about that, and that’s a real problem for the FBI.

Baier: But this doesn’t back up the President’s ‘it’s a coup to take him down’ in this report…

Ratcliffe: Actually, I don’t know that you can say that, Brett…

Baier: …well, at least the IG says that.

Ratcliffe: Well, the IG’s role is to find facts, not to make conclusions, and actually I agree with most of the facts that the IG finds.  The facts in here say that the FBI’s senior leadership kept an investigation going where they knew they had no evidence – it was based on a dossier that was entirely unreliable and they knew it. And they did that, to continue an investigation into a candidate that later became President. And they didn’t have a basis to do that. And that’s in this report.

Baier: What about the criticism of Barr, that he comes out with this statement today, clearly differing on several points with the IG, and a short time later the U.S. Attorney, John Durham, puts out a statement in which he says his findings do not jive with what the IG finds. That’s pretty rare, is it not?

Ratcliffe: No, it’s not. Because really what it is is a sign of respect. John Durham waited until Horowitz’s report came out – that’s why he hasn’t made public statements. But now that the IG report is out, he is free to talk about the facts about what he has found. The first thing that he told you was, ‘I appreciate the IG, but my jurisdiction isn’t limited. I have greater jurisdiction, and what I have found isn’t consistent with his conclusions about that seminal issue, the predication issue.’

The AG’s special prosecutor in this case, John Durham, is saying, ‘I have a problem with the predication here. I disagree with the IG – there was not probable cause to open this investigation.’ So, I think…

Baier: Critics have said that ‘if he’s a prosecutor, does he make his case, bring it to a grand jury, make a charge before making a statement.’ Republicans were very critical of James Comey and what he did…

Ratcliffe: Absolutely, and he didn’t make a finding with respect to that [as Comey did]. What he said was, ‘I take with the IG’s findings and conclusions regarding the predication issue…’

Baier: He didn’t say what his was.

Ratcliffe: He didn’t say what his was. But I think it’s a clear sign of where he’s going on this, which is ‘I have greater jurisdiction. I’ve done a lot more with regard to this investigation,’ and I think in short order we are going to hear from John Durham that the predication just wasn’t there, as most of us really don’t see it even in this report.

Baier: So we’ve characterized, on our panel in talking about this, that there’s two tracks here: There’s the impeachment track, and then there’s this John Durham/IG track. Is it your sense that there’s a race now to figure out who’s gonna get to the finish line on what happens?

Ratcliffe:  I’ve said that all along, that that’s what’s driving this fast track [on impeachment]. They want to impeach this President so that when news like this comes out, they can say ‘gosh, we’re sorry there was FISA abuse, but this guy still should’ve been impeached.’ That’s why they’ve been racing through this. This report by itself, I think the more you look at it, the more you see, it’s an indictment of Jim Comey’s leadership at the FBI. This is a profound statement about how bad things were there with regard to an investigation that was continued without evidence to support it. I think folks at the FBI are horrified and dismayed by what’s in this report, and it’s only gonna get worse by what John Durham finds because he has the ability to go out and talk to the intelligence communities and people who weren’t working in the government.

[End]

To me, the most intriguing piece of this interview is Ratcliffe’s statement about there still being one more interview transcript – the very first interview taken in the basement of the Capitol Building – that Adam Schiff has refused to release. When you look at what Ratcliffe reveals about that transcript, that the witness says that Eric Ciaramella in fact walked into Schiff’s office two weeks before his fake whistleblower complaint was filed, you can see why Schiff refuses to release it.

After all, during the recent impeachment hearings before his Committee, Schiff very publicly and repeatedly denied assertions by GOP members that he knew the whistleblower’s identity and had in fact met Ciaramella. The fact that he refuses to release this single transcript would, in a world where we had an actual, working journalism profession, set off a firestorm of demands from the news media that Schiff release the transcript immediately.

But we don’t have an actual, working journalism profession in our country anymore, so no such firestorm will come.

Even more interesting to me is that what Ratcliffe said to Baier was not very “cryptic” at all, and probably violates Schiff’s dictatorial secrecy order about the content of any transcripts that haven’t been released. It will be interesting to see if Schiff attempts to retaliate. I doubt he will, because doing so might actually wake some of the lapdog fake journalists up from their nap on the subject.

The other reason why I took the time to transcribe this particular clip out of all the interview clips available this morning is because Ratcliffe himself is a former U.S. Attorney. He more than anyone understands how all these moving parts interrelate to one another.

Ratcliffe also reinforces what we pointed out here yesterday afternoon: That the real news about all of this is not what Horowitz’s report finds, but what Durham said in his statement that immediately followed the report’s release. Because it is Durham who has subpoena authority; it is Durham who has the power to compel testimony from witnesses outside of the DOJ/FBI employee base; it is Durham who has the power to impanel grand juries – which he has already done; and it is Durham who has the power to issue indictments and order arrests and stage perp walks.

The IG Report is out. Now, it’s Durham Time.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

IG Report: Not a Bombshell, But a Roadmap

Today’s Campaign Update, Part III
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

No, it’s not a “bombshell” that will satisfy Sean Hannity and his “Tick-tock” crew. Michael Horowitz was never going to deliver anything remotely like that, given his bias towards protecting the Department that pays his salary and the constraints under which he is required to perform his job.

The report released today at 1:00 ET contains no criminal referrals. Not one. It finds “no political bias” in the process that led the Obama-era coup cabal within the FBI and DOJ to apply for a FISA warrent to enable it to spy on members of the Trump Campaign, even though the report reminds us of Horowitz’s previous findings of heavy bias indicated in the texts between lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. These abject failures on the part of Horowitz to really do his job will provide temporary succor to the lunatics at CNN and MSNBC, as well as the radical leftist Perpetual Outrage Mob on Twitter.

But that succor will likely be short-lived as the wheels of justice continue to slowly grind on.

To understand that, all you need to see is the following statement issued by U.S. Attorney John Durham in the immediate wake of the issuance of the Horowitz Report:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

There’s your “boom.” There’s your “bombshell.”

In fairness to Horowitz, and as Mr. Durham concedes, the IG is limited by law and regulation in the scope of his investigation. He is able to only collect evidence from current and former DOJ/FBI employees. The IG has no subpoena power, no authority to compel documents from anyone outside the Department, and no authority to indict or prosecute anyone.

Mr. Durham has all of those things, along with the personal directive and cover coming from Attorney General William Barr.

In the current public context, Durham’s pointed rebuke of “some of the report’s conclusions” is not only surprising, it is in fact more than a little stunning. After all, Durham, as a DOJ employee, could find himself at some future point in time subject to an investigation led by Horowitz in his oversight responsibilities. The fact that he would issue this pointed and direct statement immediately after Horowitz’s own report is made public tells us volumes about the real level of disapproval Durham – and by extension, AG Barr – really hold for this report.

For his own part, Mr. Barr had this to say:

Image

On the other hand, as more and more out-takes from the Horowitz Report are made public, it is becoming evident it does hold value. Just as the Democrats had hoped that the Mueller Report would provide them with a “roadmap to impeachment”, it is beginning to look like the Horowitz Report could provide Barr and Durham with a “roadmap to prosecution” of many of the Obama-era bad actors.

Here are some examples of the key information Horowitz has laid out:

  • Horowitz confirms the FBI never corroborated any of Steele’s allegations against Carter Page: “The FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reports when it relied upon them in the FISA applications.”
  • Further, in defending itself to the IG, the FBI contended that it didn’t have to corroborate anything to the FISA court and it had no obligation to determine whether Steele’s allegations were true. The FBI claimed its only obligation was to correctly transcribe Steele’s false charges. That is not what the law and regulations say. Not at all.
  • Of applications for warrants to spy on US citizen Carter Page, IG says “numerous instances in which factual representations in those applications were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation.”
  • Massive counterintelligence investigation (Crossfire Hurricane) against the presidential campaign of opposing party was started solely on a tip from a foreign government, nothing else, according to Horowitz. A few days later, four campaign officials were targeted, because they’d been to Russia or talked to Russians.
  • Horowitz conclusion about this extraordinarily flimsy excuse: he’s “concerned” about investigation handling given “constitutionally protected activity occurring during a national presidential campaign.” He’s also “concerned” about “intrusive investigative techniques that could impact constitutionally protected activity.” Such “concern,” but no action. No criminal referrals, no internal disciplinary actions recommended – just “concern.”
  • Horowitz says DOJ/FBI officials all agreed that they should launch massive counterintelligence probe on the basis of that one uncorroborated tip and not tell the campaign, in case they were all in on it. Yet, Horowitz finds “no political bias” in that decision.
  • Horowitz found that the FBI falsely claimed to the FISA Court not only that Carter Page was a Russian agent, but also falsely claimed that an unnamed intelligence agency had told the FBI that Page was “not a source” in their efforts to surveil and curtail Russian intelligence efforts.
  • Ahead of an application to renew the spy warrant in 2017, a top FBI lawyer doctored evidence from the unnamed agency which confirmed that contrary to FBI claims that he was a Russian spy, Page had in fact assisted the United States in its efforts to counter Russian operations. An e-mail from the agency that clearly stated Page was “a source” for them was doctored by Kevin Clinesmith, a top FBI national security lawyer, to give the opposite impression to the federal spy court.

There will no doubt be more revelations as the day goes on, but these give you a flavor of the real, damning information contained in this report that you will not see reported on CNN or MSNBC.

Again to be fair to Horowitz, a generous reading of this situation could be that he held back on making any criminal or disciplinary recommendations in this report in order to leave those decisions up to Barr and Durham. That’s certainly possible, although the blunt tone of Durham’s statement implies a true dissatisfaction with the IG’s findings, or lack thereof.

In any event, the IG report contains a lot of fodder for Durham’s efforts. Let’s hope he makes good use of every bit of it.

The future of the American Republic depends on these bad actors being brought to real justice.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

The Horowitz FISA Investigation May Have Found its Scapegoat

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Details of the Horowitz FISA report are leaking, and it all smacks of a whitewash. – Not that that outcome wasn’t completely predictable, since I warned you to fully expect that in yesterday’s Campaign Update.

Last night, CNN ran with a story – based on leaks no doubt obtained from one of the many ex-FBI snakes now employed by the fakest news channel on earth – proclaiming that Horowitz’s report will make claims of criminal activity by a single FBI lawyer, whose identity is not revealed in the story. Might it be James Baker, the former FBI general counsel now working for CNN as a contributor? Might it be Lisa Page, the paramour and co-conspirator to super-duper FBI stud Peter Strzok? We didn’t know, and CNN wasn’t telling.

What CNN did say about the nature of the potential charges against this lawyer is this:

A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

A little later in the evening, the Deep State mouthpieces at the Washington Post came in with a story of their own, and it revealed more about this lawyer’s identity. According to the Post:

The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.

Hilariously, after Wolf Blitzer carried a report on this CNN “breaking news,” the fake news channel’s own on-air fake talent studiously ignored it for the rest of the evening. Only in America’s dead profession of journalism would a news outlet work so hard to bury a major scoop that its own people were the first to report.

But the bottom line here is that Horowitz, true to his nature as a career creature of the DC Swamp, has apparently found the perfect scapegoat, a low-level lawyer who has already been forced out of his job and who can now become the sacrificial lamb, the offering to the public in a report that otherwise whitewashes the utter defrauding of the FISA process that we all know was led by Strzok, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein, among others. We know a whitewash is very likely because the Post piece also contains this very disturbing passage:

That conduct did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had a proper legal and factual basis, the officials said.

Ugh.

The lone bit of potentially good news in all of this actually appears in the CNN report:

Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

So, again, if you were expecting gang-buster, myriad criminal referrals to be contained in the report from career apparatchik Michael Horowitz, you would be well advised to cool your jets. While reports from CNN and the WaPo are highly suspect at best and far from definitive accounts of the totality of the Horowitz’s findings, they provide good initial foundation to believe the report will be a classic DC Swamp whitewash.

After all, if the report contained criminal referrals targeting the true major players in all of this, those major players would be working with their toadies at CNN, WaPo, the NYTimes and the networks to plant stories that smear Horowitz and contain more-preferred narratives.

If you want real justice to be levied at the coup cabal plotters, it will either come from John Durham and his investigation, or it will never come at all.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Why Did William Barr Meet with Rupert Murdoch?

(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

This is going to be a fun, fun week. – Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe announced over the weekend that his group is going to be releasing a new series of confidential recording this week. The target of this project?

CNN. Check this out:

This week, a CNN insider will blow the whistle and through Project Veritas will release dozens of recordings made of officials at the highest levels of CNN, revealing a political agenda, bias and misconduct hidden from public view.

This series of tapes — which we think will be the biggest story of the year for Project Veritas — blends two extraordinary series of events; a brave insider secretly recording at work and a hard-hitting piece of hidden camera muckraking into one of the supposed “most trusted names in news.”

Oh, my. Somewhere, Brian Stelter is huddled in a broom closet, furiously consuming a sack of jelly donuts. What fun!

Are there really any coincidences in the DC Swamp?  –  Speaking of cable news outlets, here’s something to think about where Fox News is concerned: Last Thursday, the fake news media was filled with reports about Attorney General William Barr holding a meeting with Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of the Board for Fox News, the previous evening. Democrats were so alarmed about the meeting that they were all over CNN and MSNBC that day demanding a congressional investigation, even though there was no publicly-known reason for them to have any concern.

Of course, the Democrats have been in a bit of a frenzy to tarnish Barr’s reputation as he proceeds with his investigation into the origins of the coordinated DOJ/FBI/CIA/media efforts to deny Trump the presidency in 2016 and later to stage a coup d’etat to remove him from office, efforts that continue to this day. But the concern over this simple meeting seemed bizarrely overwrought, even in the context of that character assassination campaign, at least until Friday afternoon at 3:59 ET, when Shep Smith announced his “resignation” from his amazingly undeserved position at the cable news channel.

Remember that a big part of the Barr/John Durham investigation focuses on the massive leaking and cozy relationships with certain media members by the coup plotters within the government. It is also very important to remember that DOJ IG Michael Horowitz’s long-overdue FISA abuse report supposedly will be released late this week, and Horowitz has also been heavily-focused on the leaking issue.

The three things could be totally unconnected, but you can’t help wondering if Barr met with Murdoch to let him know what his investigation has discovered related to some of Fox’s employees and contributors, including some of its on-air “talent,” and their relationships with the Deep State coup participants. Certainly, no one among Fox’s on-air anchors has spent more time parroting the talking points of the Deep State more fervently over the past few years than Shep Smith has.

Again, it could all be just a big coincidence, and maybe Mr. Smith just got tired of being the cable channel’s poster child for the DC Swamp. Or maybe he got canned as a result of his on-air feud with the highly-rated Tucker Carlson. But I’ve never been much of a believer in coincidences.

Speaking of that on-air feud between Smith and Carlson, highly-paid Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano was at the center of all of that. As reported on September 25 by Vanity Fair:

The schism was evident this week as a feud erupted between afternoon anchor Shepard Smith and prime-time host Tucker Carlson. It started Tuesday when Fox legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told Smith on-air that Trump committed a “crime” by pressuring Ukraine’s president to get dirt on Biden. That night, Carlson brought on former Trump lawyer Joe diGenova, who called Napolitano a “fool” for claiming Trump broke the law. Yesterday, Smith lashed back, calling Carlson “repugnant” for not defending Napolitano on air.

Of course, Vanity Fair omits the fact that “former Trump lawyer Joe diGenova” is also a former U.S. Attorney, and a very highly-regarded one. Because of course that’s what they did – that’s what the fake news media does. But I digress.

The thing to remember about Napolitano is that he had a very, very noticeable on-air transformation from being a Trump supporter one day to changing his on-air “legal analyses” into consistent anti-Trump rants the next. This transformation took place suddenly, shortly before the President publicly announced the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to become his second Supreme Court appointment. It is well-known that Napolitano actively lobbied the President for a Supreme Court nomination.

Here is what we also know without any doubt whatsoever: A large number of “journalists” and cable TV personalities are on the payroll of our intelligence agencies, and have been for more than half a century now. The convergence of all of these events could be mere coincidence, but it is certainly valid to wonder if Barr met with Murdoch as a courtesy call to give the media mogul a head’s up on which of his employees might be about to become implicated in some very major investigations.

The hyper-panicked reaction by the Democrats to what could well have been just a dinner between two old acquaintances indicates they’re a lot more worried about it than any reasonable person would be.

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: