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

William Barr Tosses Out Some Real, Live Bombs in MSNBC Interview

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

Ok, if you’re still sitting around worrying that Attorney General William Barr has gone all wobbly – even after yesterday’s pointed statements by he and U.S. Attorney John Durham in response to the IG Report – then I think I may have found your cure. Earlier today, MSNBC aired an interview involving one of their hack reporters and Attorney General Barr, and boy, is it epic. Mr. Barr is making no bones about his continued consistent views on what he bluntly still refers to as the “spying” on the Trump Campaign by the Obama FBI, and is not backing off even a little bit from his assessment of the contents of the IG Report.

Below is a clip of the first 3:17 of the interview, followed by a transcript. Watch and/or read, and if you don’t feel better after doing that, then I’m afraid there is nothing more I can do to help you.

 

Now, the Transcript, lovingly and laboriously prepared by we here at the Campaign Update for our audience made up mostly of voracious readers:

MSNBC Hack: Why do you say the FBI opened the investigation on the Trump Campaign on the “thinnest of suspicions?”

Barr: Well, I’m glad to get into the issue of predication, but let me just start out by saying that I think you have to put this in context. I think the heart of the IG’s report really focused on how the investigation was conducted once it got going, and that is especially the very serious abuses of FISA that occurred, much of which has in my view not been accurately reported by the press over the last day.

But, in one area I do disagree with the IG, and that was whether there was sufficient predication to open a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, specifically using the techniques that they did to collect intelligence about the Trump Campaign.

MSNBC Hack: W, w, well as a policy matter, why not open an investigation on a thin pretext? [Seriously???] I guess on the one hand you could say that it’s a presidential campaign, it’s very sensitive, you need better evidence. On the other hand, you could say, it’s a presidential campaign, we have to be very careful, it’s a threat to our political process.

Barr: I think probably from a civil liberties standpoint [Which liberals USED to be concerned about – remember?] the greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state – principally the law enforcement agencies and the intelligence agencies – both to spy [!] on political opponents, but also to use them in a way that could affect the outcome of the election.

As far as I’m aware, this is the first time in our history that this has been done to a presidential campaign. The use of these counterintelligence techniques against a presidential campaign. And we have to remember, in today’s world, presidential campaigns are frequently in contact with foreign persons, and indeed, in most campaigns there are signs of illegal foreign money coming in [!!!].

And we don’t automatically assume that the campaigns are nefarious and traitors and acting in league with foreign powers. There has to be some basis before we use these very potent powers in our core first amendment activity.  And here, I felt this was very flimsy.

Basically, I think the Department has a “rule of reason” which is, at the end of the day, what you’re relying on – sufficiently powerful to justify the techniques you’re using. And the question there is, how strong is the evidence? How sensitive is the activity you’re looking at? And what are the alternatives?

I think when you step back here and say, what was this all based on?, it’s not sufficient.

Remember, there was and never has been any evidence of “collusion.” And yet, this campaign, and the President’s Administration has been dominated by this investigation into what turns out to be completely baseless.

[End]

Things to note in this:

  • Barr’s intentional and pointed use of the word “spy” to describe what the Coup Cabal did to the Trump Campaign. He knows this will cause Democrats and the media to fry their own brains. Epic.
  • Barr’s unqualified statement that “there was and never has been ANY evidence of ‘collusion.'” That tells you that he – and presumably also Durham – simply do not accept that there was ANY premise at all for operation “Crossfire Hurricane” to begin in the first place, nor was there ANY reason for the appointment of a special counsel, much less a two-year-long investigation by Mueller. That is bad, bad news for not just Comey, Strzok, Page and McCabe, but also for Mueller and Rosenstein, who made the decision to appoint Mueller based on…nothing.
  • Also very interesting is this statement’s phrasing: “… the greatest danger to our free system is that the incumbent government use the apparatus of the state…”. The use of the words “incumbent government” rather than the more limited “Department of Justice,” or the even  more limited “FBI” is very, very interesting, and implies that Barr and Durham are not limiting their investigation to those outside of the Obama White House, but may well be looking inside it as well. Boom, if so.
  • Then there’s the seemingly gratuitous noting of the fact that “…in most campaigns there are signs of illegal foreign money coming in.” Think about that one: Which two recent campaigns have been most prominent in having allegations of benefiting from foreign money? If you said “the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Campaigns,” you win the prize.

William Barr is a man with a well-earned history of choosing the words he uses carefully and with intent. He doesn’t just shoot his mouth off in public without giving a lot of forethought to exactly what the message is that he wants to convey.

There are a lot of very powerful messages directed at the bad actors from the Obama years in that short three-minute clip.

Those messages are also directed at those of you who still doubt Mr. Barr’s real intentions here. Are you listening?

Addendum: Here is another 57 seconds of that Barr interview and it is just as EPIC:

Transcript:

MSNBC Hack: So do you still stand by your statement that the Trump Campaign was spied upon?

Barr: [Incredulous that the question would even be asked.] Oh, it was CLEARLY spied upon. I mean, that’s what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying. I think going through people’s emails, which they did as a result of the FISA warrant, they went through everything, you know, from Page’s life…

MSNBC Hack: Of course, he wasn’t in the campaign at the point where they got the surveillance…

Barr: [Even more incredulous at this raging hack.] No, but his emails go back. The main reason they were going for the FISA warrant initially was to go back historically and seize all his emails and texts and all that stuff from back – months and even years. So, they were covering the period when he was in the campaign and that’s exactly the reason they went for the FISA – to get that stuff.

[End]

Feeling better yet?

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

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

Trey Gowdy Warns Us Not To Expect Any BOOM From The Horowitz FISA Report

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

In case you missed it, plodding, thus-far-inept DOJ IG Michael Horowitz sent a letter to congress yesterday notifying key committee chairs that he has finally, at long last, completed the initial draft if his eons-awaited report on FISA abuse. The report now goes to Attorney General William Barr and swamp rat FBI Director Christopher Wray to begin the internal review process. That process will likely consume another month or so, maybe even longer, before the public will finally, at long last, be able to see the fruits of Horowitz’s glacially-paced labors.

This, of course will set the stage for all manner of leaking and self-puffery by the subjects of the IG’s report, including John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe, to name just a few of the Usual Suspects who the public record already available clearly demonstrates defrauded the FISA court repeatedly during 2016-17.

It also sets the stage for wild anticipation and irrational optimism among Trump supporters who have been paying attention to all of this that Horowitz is somehow about to deliver the goods on all the participants in the Obama DOJ/FBI Cabal, the foundation that will result in all of them being tried for treason and shipped off to prison for the rest of their lives.

Like clockwork, former prosecutor and ex-congressman Trey Gowdy appeared on Sean Hannity’s show last night to caution everyone to cool your heels and tamp down your expectations. Below is a video clip of that appearance, with a partial transcript to follow:

 

Here’s a partial transcript for those of you who still like to read stuff:

Gowdy: “It’s hard to convince 12 people of anything – I used to have to do that for a living. It’s tough. You’ve gotta dot every I and cross every T.

“Candidly, it is more difficult if it is a high-profile defendant. So, if they go forward with McCabe, it’s going to be a tough trial. You don’t want the U.S. government going to trial and losing on a regular basis. They lost the Greg Craig case, and that’s not good. If you’re going to go to trial, you need to win.”

Hannity shifts the subject to the IG Report producing indictments:

Gowdy: “You have to find a criminal statute if your objective is indictment. That is why I’m very clear every time I appear on your show that we cannot live in a society where an indictment is the only thing that carries any stigma [valid point there –  more on that at the bottom of this piece].

“Most of the names in this FISA abuse process have already been fired or publicly called to task. Jim Comey, twice now, the IG said ‘you did not meet our expectations. You failed to follow policy. You violated your employment agreement.’ All of that has to be significant.

“I used to try to make representations in court, and I tried real hard to be honest and fair about it. But let’s assume that I didn’t tell the court something. The remedy for me is not indictment. The remedy is I may lose my law license, I may be held in contempt.”

[Hannity interrupts, which is what he is good at, but makes a good point about the use of the unverified Dossier as the basis for the FISA warrants being a conscious fraud on the court, which it was. Repeatedly.]

Gowdy: “Well, if you were a lawyer, you’d lose your law license, and the court could hold you in contempt. You would be held in contempt of court, absolutely and you can go to jail for that. But I don’t know that lawyers who make factual misrepresentations in front of judges get indicted. You’re gonna get punished, you’re gonna be held in contempt, you may get sent to prison.

“I’m not minimizing anything they’ve done. I’m saying we’ve gotta attach the right punishment to the right offense.”

[Hannity visibly angry now: “But by signing that, they’re denying an American citizen their constitutional rights. They’re literally using that lie to spy on a presidential candidate, and then transition.”]

Gowdy: “Aha! We’ve identified a statute! Using the color of a government official – it could be a 1983 action. And that’s all I’m saying – we have gotta match up the conduct with an official code violation. What you just laid out is a 1983 violation.  Now, we’re getting somewhere!” [Note: U.S. Code Sec. 1983 allows prosecutors to pursue a civil action against anyone acting “under color of law” to deprive an American citizen of their civil rights. It is not a criminal statute.]

[Hannity: “I’ll send you Greg Jarrett’s list, he’s identified a whole bunch of violations.”]

Gowdy: “Don’t sent it to me, send it to Bill Barr.”

[Hannity dissembles about not knowing Barr. Interview ends.]

So, if you’ve been reading all those Twitter-based tick-tock conspiracy mongers and and watching Hannity air the same program every night for the last 18 months, leading you to believe the IG’s report was going to lower the BOOM on all the participants in the Obama Cabal, well, sorry. Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor who never lost a case is here to tell you to dampen those expectations and go watch some football this weekend instead.

Finally, let’s review this passage of Gowdy’s comments:

“That is why I’m very clear every time I appear on your show that we cannot live in a society where an indictment is the only thing that carries any stigma [valid point there –  more on that at the bottom of this piece].

“Most of the names in this FISA abuse process have already been fired or publicly called to task. Jim Comey, twice now, the IG said ‘you did not meet our expectations. You failed to follow policy. You violated your employment agreement.’ All of that has to be significant.”

Of course, Gowdy’s absolutely right there. Public stigma used to be a vital aspect of punishing bad actors like the Cabal participants whenever the government couldn’t succeed in actually prosecuting them under criminal statutes.

The problem, though, is that that stigma no longer exists for anyone who is opposed to President Donald Trump. That stigma can only exist if our society has a real, working news media establishment that is willing to lay out the truth of their acts to the public and shame them for it. Our fake new media no longer serves that function related to anyone opposed to Trump. In fact, those bad actors are not only NOT shamed by the media, many of them are handsomely rewarded by the media with big “contributor” contracts. Witness Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, James Clapper as prime examples.

Peter Strzok and Comey were fired, but then were rewarded by the media with big book deals. Strzok and McCabe were both able to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from demented leftists when they set-up online funds for their legal defense. On and on the depravity on the political left and in our fake news media goes.

So, while what Gowdy says there used to be correct in a U.S. society of decades ago, it is utterly irrelevant in today’s world. Absent indictments – or, as Gowdy repeatedly implies in this interview, being held in contempt by the FISA court and spending jail time for that – all of these co-conspirators will just keep laughing all the way to the bank with money largely provided them by our fake news media.

Sad, but true.

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.

AP Drops Fake News About New York AG’s Fake Lawsuit To Distract From Horowitz Report

Mid-day Campaign Update

(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

If you’ve been listening to or watching the news this morning you are no doubt aware of this report from the Associated Press:

[Excerpt]

NEW YORK (AP) — A lawsuit filed by New York’s attorney general Thursday said President Donald Trump used his charitable foundation to settle personal business disputes and bolster his political image with donations directed by his staff.

The Donald J. Trump Foundation “was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality,” Democratic Attorney General Barbara Underwood said as she sued to dissolve the foundation and seek $2.8 million in restitution.

The lawsuit says the foundation illegally helped support the Republican’s campaign by raising money at a nationally televised fundraiser in January 2016, then allowing campaign staffers to dictate how the money was spent in grants.

In a couple of tweets, Trump called the case “ridiculous” and said he would not settle the lawsuit.

 

Many of you are also no doubt aware that the few things that have leaked thus far about the DOJ IG’s report on the Clinton email scandal have thus far been less than earthshaking, and you may be thinking it’s all a big nothing burger.

But think about this: Why did the news of this NY AG’s suit against the Trump Foundation break this particular morning? If you believe that is a coincidence, think again. This is right in line with this morning’s Campaign Update, in which I discussed how the fake news media drops fake stories like this one anytime the news cycle is likely to be favorable to President Trump.

But wait, this is not fake news, you say? Not so fast my friends!

This is a case that now-disgraced and resigned NY AG Eric Schneiderman threatened to bring against Trump and his foundation at similarly strategic times last year and the year prior to that. It’s a phony “investigation” of a charitable foundation that, as Trump himself tweeted this morning, in its lifetime has actually contributed MORE MONEY than it has taken in.

Compare that to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, which regularly contributes about 5% of the donations it takes in, spending the remainder on employee costs (including salaries to all three Clintons) and travel expenses and meeting costs.

What is most likely going to happen in this case is that, once the public’s memory has faded about this morning’s filing, the NY AG’s office will quietly dismiss the suit late on a Friday evening.

Here’s the other thing: There would be no reason for the fake media to drop this fake story this morning if the IG’s report is just a big nothing burger. It’s 500 pages long, and you haven’t seen the whole thing yet.

But somebody somewhere is very worried about what’s in it.

That is all.

Open post

Another Trump Troll, Another IG Report Delay to End the Week

The Evening Campaign Update

(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

“Ok, so here’s the strategy on this latest huge jobs report.  We all do a 10-second report on it as soon as it’s issued and then just drop it like we always d…wait, what?  The President just did what?  He tweeted about it?  You have got to be sh…ok, that’s a huge story – gotta go report on it!” – The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, got in one final troll of the fake news media before the weekend Friday morning when he issued a tweet prior to the release of this month’s latest fantastic jobs report:

As you can see, the tweet reveals absolutely no information about the report itself, yet it set off a mad scramble among pretty much every fake reporter in the fake news media to see who could be the first to get a report out claiming that the tweet “breached protocol” with some stories even claiming it to be a crime.  Hilarious, and obviously idiotically fake stuff.

This was an obvious troll by the President to force the fake news media, which has in past months barely even mentioned the stunning jobs growth being experienced in the Trump economy, to actually do their jobs.  So, while all the fake reporters and fake editors no doubt believed their fake reports were damaging the President they all hate, the fact is that millions of Americans today learned that the economy added far more jobs in April than anyone expected, and the economy is nearing actual full employment.

Had Trump not issued that tweet, yet another in a long string of fantastic jobs reports would have gone basically ignored by our fake national news media.  The joke’s on you guys, even though you probably still don’t even realize it.

IG Report Delayed, yet again. – Charles Grassley postponed the scheduled June 5 hearing of his Senate Judiciary Committee to review the long-pending DOJ Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s fake investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal.  The hearing is now tentatively scheduled for June 11, meaning Grassley now expects the report to be made public late next week.

These delaying games being endlessly played by DOJ are incredibly tiresome.  No telling what is being done to that report as time goes on and bad actors like Rod Rosenstein have it in their greasy hands.

On a related note, the news fakers at the Washington Post reported late Thursday that ex-FBI Director and current teenage drama queen James Comey was interviewed “recently” by D.C.-based U.S. attorneys leading the prosecution of his ex-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.  McCabe is facing charges for repeatedly lying to DOJ investigators and making unauthorized leaks to the news media, which he claims his boss – the teenage drama queen – knew all about.  Comey denies McCabe’s story, and thus prosecutors will almost certainly be left with trying to sort out which of the two famous – and infamous – liars to believe.

It’s a tough job, but somebody’s gotta do it.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

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: