We are the drain the swamp people

• Fully transitioned — to swinging left
• Singing the tune ~~ I’m a progressive too!
• Her one-time supposed conservative positions had more wiggle room than a Hawaiian luau
• Her brush-up with selfish Hillary notwithstanding (that was just Hillary trying to clear the field for a possible run)
  
• Bottom line – by any stretch of her yoga pants, she’s a liberal Democrat

“Trust me – I’m one of you” (No & no you’re not)

So we have the Iowa Caucuses fast approaching and the press will be likely camped out here all next month until the caucuses are over. There will be conservative press here too and to the extent that they are pumping up Gabbard out of some bizarre need to say something nice about a Democrat – they are needlessly promoting if not an untrustworthy human being one who is essentially just as foursquare liberal as the rest. She has abandoned some positions that set her apart (if she was ever serious about them) only to adopt positions that are in all practicality essentially ultra-leftist Democrat positions on gay marriage, on drug legalization, on gun rights, on Keystone pipeline, on the right to life.**

Whatever her actual positions on those issues in the past there is little now to separate her from the Democrat herd. Sort of like how the differences between Ford and Mercury automobiles evolved — same platforms with fans of one or the other arguing over what amounted to nuances. The idea that she is meaningfully pro-life is belied by her position statement that supports the codification of Roe v Wade which obliterates any actionable prevention of third trimester abortion.  Indeed Gabbards opposed attempts under Roe to actually limit abortion.* Further she supports increased funding for Planned Parenthood the nations largest abortion syndicate.

The only apparent flip that may bother any Democrat constituency (driven more by their own particular favorite candidate) is that she opposed legalizing gay marriage at one time.  But she has now dutifully apologized for her previous position. The only difference between her and the rest of the pack is that they may desire to punish her for not being on the cutting edge of that issue.  Not so ironically she and Obama got the Democrat religion on that score about the same time.  On that we note she abandoned her more conservative father who organized opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii.  Her father is Catholic and apparently of the traditional variety.

On the right to life she abandons not only presumably her father but arguably her mother, or at least the religion of her mother, who is Buddhist, a religion that opposes abortion. Gabbard is also Buddhist so it is arguably a double whammy.

On guns she wants an assault weapon ban ala Clinton (a genuinely silly position for somebody supposedly familiar with the functioning of firearms as her Army veteran status would imply).  She also advocates closing the so-called gun-show loophole, and supports the essence of gun registry or at least the stalking horses for it.

And dutifully, not to religion or a republican form of government, but to party, she supports single-payer health insurance. Even Obama didn’t officially go that far out of the paddock. But then Tulsi was a Bernie supporter. There is no bigger power grab for government than that.

Any elected Democrat as president would surround herself with the party apparat, would have to, and that means further ratcheting of the country toward the socialist stranglehold in so many ways.

The clip below is from a progressive site that questions the authenticity of her claimed progressive positions.  It is a hatchet job but it is useful to identify where they are coming from. Going to Gabbard’s web site you will see that she claims the basic ultra-liberal positions on key issues.   Her core positions are fully conducive, fully in step with ultra liberal takes on the issues addressed.  Testimony to that is provided by the comments from progressives defending her which accompany the site where this clip was posted.  The second clip** is a little ditty we thought appropriate.

**The title to this article is misleading indeed belied by the the actual content:

Gabbard sat down with libertarian commentator Dave Rubin for a wide-ranging interview released Sunday, during which he brought up the subject of abortion. She described her overall stance as a “more libertarian” belief in government’s role, that “government really shouldn’t be in that place of dictating to a woman the choice that she should make.”

“I think that there should be some restrictions, though,” she added. When Rubin (who describes himself as “pro-choice” but growing more ambivalent on the issue) asked for a “cutoff point for that,” she answered, “I think the third trimester, unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

Gabbard’s answer leaves significant wiggle room as to whether she would support a meaningful late-term abortion ban, given how current Supreme Court precedent defines how “health” is to be understood in the context of abortion.

“(M)edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health,” the Court declared in Doe v. Bolton, the companion ruling to Roe v. Wade. “This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

0

0

Dershowitz – diGinova – Cleveland – Attkisson –– Many important points are being made about Inspector General Horowitz’ report, dropped this week, as it is combed through by various analysts. Most of the liberal ones are keeping their mouth’s shut out of embarrassment.

The 500 page or so report (pdf format) can be downloaded in its entirety at this link.  There is an executive summary at the beginning.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Articles, excerpts and new developments that took our eye:

A Supreme Court decision this week agreeing to take up (and thus forestalling) attempts by Democrats to muck around in  Trump’s private tax returns (special thank you notorious RBG) provides a key argument against one of the two articles of impeachment proffered out of the Democrat controlled House Judiciary Committee yesterday.

Elizabeth Vaughn at RedState highlights a compelling argument by liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz. In short the SCOTUS has indicated Trump has an argument about declining to facilitate fishing expeditions by political rivals so a charge of “obstructing justice”is undercut

Dershowitz: SCOTUS ‘Just Crippled the Second House Impeachment Charge Against Trump’ 

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz sees this as a huge win for the President. In a Friday night appearance on “Hannity,” Dershowitz explained.

Look, the most important development happened today. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena. And the Supreme Court said we’re going to hear this case.…Think of what that message is – It’s Trump was right.

You don’t have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless a court tells you you have to comply. Now, we don’t know how the Supreme Court is going to come out, but they made it clear that’s a viable issue. So that charge, that ground of impeachment, should be immediately removed by the House and not sent to the Senate. There’s nothing to it anymore after the Supreme Court today said you’re entitled to a review on an issue when the President challenges the subpoena power of Congress. It’s all done. It’s over.

Not just the FBI in hot water – Obama DOJ people under scrutiny and likely indictment

Joe Joe DiGenova is quoted as saying on a CNBC interview: “devastating. It’s going to ruin careers, it’s going to make people have bar problems”?

Joe diGenova: I would say explosive and I would say for people at the highest levels of the FBI and at the highest levels of the Justice Department, more important at the Justice Department, it’s going to be devastating. It’s going to ruin careers, it’s going to make people have bar problems… What’s clear now we know is that the senior levels of the Obama Justice Department were complicit in knowingly submitting materially false applications to the FISA Court for an illegitimate counterintelligence purpose. Not for a legitimate purpose but to spy on Americans for political purposes. And it really will end up being the beginning of the greatest political scandal in history. And it’s being held up partially because of John Durham’s new grand jury exists for one reason and one reason only – because people are going to be indicted.

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist explains:

Why The IG Report On FISA Abuse Will Unleash Barr’s Investigation Of Spygate

The closing of the final inspector general investigation into the Russia collusion investigation promises to open the flood gates for previously undisclosed information and indictments.

Sharyl Attkisson at The Epoch Times:

William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty—and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump 

In each of two video appearances, on NBC News and at Wall Street Journal’s “CEO Council,” Attorney General William Barr provided the same basic information and views about the U.S. intelligence community’s actions against the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2017. A criminal investigation is underway and being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Barr was motivated to make the public statements, he said, by the misreporting and confusion surrounding Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report issued on Dec. 9. It found serious government surveillance abuses but no evidence of political bias on the part of the offending FBI officials and agents.

Below are 24 points Barr felt the need to make after the release of the Horowitz report. (All of the information is attributed to Barr.)

1. Don’t expect Durham’s findings to be announced before late spring or summer 2020.

2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.

3. Regarding the FBI’s actions in surveilling Trump campaign associates, it was a “travesty” and there were “many abuses.”

4. From “day one,” the FBI investigation generated exculpatory information (tending to point to the targets’ innocence) and nothing that corroborated Russia collusion.

5. It’s a “big deal” to use U.S. law enforcement and intelligence resources to investigate the opposing political party, and I cannot think of another recent instance in which this happened.

6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”

7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.

8. The normal thing to do would be to tell the campaign that there could be attempted foreign interference. There is no legitimate explanation as to why the FBI didn’t do this. The FBI’s explanation for this was that they only do “defensive briefings” if they’re certain there’s no chance they’re tipping someone off. But this simply isn’t true, isn’t plausible, and doesn’t hold water because our intelligence officials and President Barack Obama repeatedly contacted the Russians, the guilty party, to tell them to “cut it out.”

9. If the purpose were to protect the election, you would have given the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. You could have disrupted any foreign activity in time to protect the U.S. election.

10. As to the FBI’s motive, “that’s why we have Durham.” I’m not saying the motivations were improper, but it’s premature to say they weren’t.

11. The inspector general operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he can’t find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.

12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz didn’t rule out improper motive; he didn’t find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
13. Instead of talking to the Trump campaign, the FBI secretly “wired up” sources and had them talk to four people affiliated with the Trump campaign, in August, September, and October 2016.

14. All of the information from this surveillance came back exculpatory regarding any supposed relationship to Russia and specific facts. But the FBI didn’t inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, which approved wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page four times.

15. At one point early on, the FBI didn’t have enough probable cause for a wiretap warrant, so it took the “Steele dossier” information against Trump, “which they’d done nothing to verify,” and used that to get the wiretaps.

16. The wiretaps allowed the FBI to go back and capture Page’s communications, emails, and other material from weeks, months, and even years ago.

17. Should the four FBI applications to wiretap Trump campaign aide Carter Page have ever been made, considering there were 17 critical omissions or errors by the FBI making it appear they had better evidence than they had? This is the meat of the issue, and “if you spend time to look at what happened, you’d be appalled.”

18. The FBI withheld from the court all of the exculpatory information and the lack of reliability of the main FBI source, Christopher Steele, who was being paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to find evidence connecting Trump to Russia.

19. The major takeaway is that after the election in January, the FBI finally talked to one of Steele’s important sources to try to verify some of the “dossier” information and sourcing, as they’re required to do. This Steele source told the FBI he didn’t know what Steele was talking about in the dossier, and that he’d told Steele that the information he’d provided was “supposition” and “theory.” At that point, “it was clear the dossier was a sham.” Yet the FBI didn’t tell the court, and continued to get wiretaps based on the dossier.

20. Further, the FBI falsely told the court that Steele’s source had been proven reliable and truthful. In fact, what the source had told the truth about was that “the dossier was garbage.” It’s hard to look at this “and not think it was gross abuse.”

21. Were the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judges who approved the four wiretaps against Trump associate Carter Page badly misled by the FBI? Yes.

22. Are people going to be held accountable, including at the very top of our intelligence agencies and FBI? Well, they’re all gone.

23. The whole Russia collusion hype was a “bogus narrative hyped by an irresponsible press” that proved entirely false in the end. Are former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI official Andy McCabe and others implicated in the Durham investigation? I think there was a failure of leadership in that group. Quoting the inspector general, the explanations he received “were not satisfactory. You can draw your own conclusions.”

24. Why haven’t we already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.

In his interviews this week, Barr provided a treasure trove of information about what stands to be one of the most important investigations into our U.S. intelligence community of our time. His signposts indicate that we can expect a shakeup of a system that may have been broken for decades.

0

0

CHRISTOPHER WRAY TO ‘SAVE THE DAY’

FBI Chief Could’ve been knocked over With a Feather When Horowitz Told Him There Might Be A Tad of Incompetence in the Bureau!

But By Golly, Chris Is Going to ‘Step Up’…Will Undoubtedly Have Agents Attend Training To Learn That Fraud, Lying, and Leaking Are Against Policy

“FBI Director Christopher Wray has ordered more than 40 changes in how the bureau seeks secret surveillance warrants…” (need more diversity and ‘correct gender pronoun’ training?)

Rumored That He Plans To Appeal To The Public To Stop Referring To Bureau As “Keystone Cops”

IG Report and response:

• “FBI agents withheld some information from the Justice Department and the FISA court…”
• “The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted’, said Mr. Wray.”
• “Wray could seek to remove low-level agents involved in the surveillance applications for Mr. Page from national security work..” (But, aren’t these part of the “36,000 hard working, committed…”?)
• “the Justice Department inspector general pointed out a series of flaws in the bureau’s efforts to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser.”

And, finally:

• ““Everyone recognizes the changes must be made, but people are also concerned that it’s just going to make it harder to do their jobs,” he said. And there is concern within the bureau that political pressure will mean harsher punishments for some employees, he said: “We get it, but at the same time, there’s a lot of fear.”

———————

Always a ‘Favorite Trump Appointee’ of Ours, we’ve noted a lot of Democrats must like Director Wray. He received confirmation support from all but 5 out of 48 Dem senators when Democrats really didn’t want to confirm any of President Trump’s appointees…Ben Carson was confirmed with only 7 Democrats voting ‘yes’; Betsy De Vos confirmed with 0 Democrats; Bill Barr was supported by 3 Dems!

In our opinion, the Democrats have been richly rewarded for their support of Christopher Wray. As FBI Director he’s done less to restore the Bureau’s image and effectiveness than it would have seemed possible to do less.

Wray stonewalled, slow-walked, and blocked many, various efforts by congressional Republicans to get to the bottom of all the incompetence and wrongdoing by key FBI officials during the Obama administration and highlighted in the DOJ Inspector General’s report. When ‘doing something’ is inescapable, Wray always announces he’s gonna have a “training program”!

Some, whom IG Horowitz has even identified as part of the FISA fiasco, are still employed by the FBI.

If the reputation and the American people’s confidence in the FBI is to ever be restored, a good first step would be for President Trump to find a new Director.    dlh

Article at WSJ link below

FBI’s Wray Acts Fast to Make Changes After Scathing Report

Move comes in response to Justice Department inspector general’s criticism of how surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser was handled

0

0

This is a Mid- October article at Market Watch (excerpt below).  Trump in a landslide? This historically accurate model predicts exactly that . Add to this the continued favorable employment, inflation, and stock market numbers, Trump’s increasing support from Black and Hispanic voters, the inability of the Dems to get anywhere with even an impeachment narrative (just the opposite) and well . . .

According to Moody’s Analytics, Trump is headed toward another four years in the White House. And, if the numbers are right, it won’t even be close.

In fact, his Electoral College victory could very well be wider than the 304-227 margin he enjoyed over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Since 1980, Moody’s has managed to nail the outcome every time but once — like many, it didn’t see Trump coming.

“In our post-mortem of the 2016 presidential election model,” the report said, “we determined that unexpected turnout patterns were one of the factors that contributed to the model’s first incorrect election prediction.” Here’s Moody’s track record, including a 2016 adjustment for the turnout variable:

Will it return to its winning ways? The team takes into account how consumers feel about their finances, the performance of the stock market SPX, +0.28% and their job prospects. Essentially, today, they’re feeling pretty good.

“Under the current Moody’s Analytics baseline economic outlook, which does not forecast any recession, the 2020 election looks like Trump’s to lose,” the authors wrote. “Democrats can still win if they are able to turn out the vote at record levels, but, under normal turnout conditions, the president is projected to win.”

From the MarketWatch archives (August 2016): To professional economists, Trump isn’t even the second best candidate in the 2016 presidential election

Moody’s uses three models to come up with its forecast. In each case, Trump gets at least 289 Electoral College votes.

The “pocketbook” measure, which focus on how people feel about their money situation, is where Trump shines brightest, grabbing a whopping 351 electoral votes. “If voters were to vote primarily on the basis of their pocketbooks, the president would steamroll the competition,” the report said.

The stock-market model gives him the slightest edge of 289-249, as investors continue to navigate a volatile investing landscape. Then there’s the unemployment model, which leans heavily in his favor at 332-206.

0

0

Back to a frequent subject of interest, and criticism, to/by your Veritaspac editorial board:

This one is in the category of “stories the press sees no reason to follow up on because it might ruin a narrative”:

Maybe some readers recall one of the ‘jovial’ rants by Pope Francis from a year or so ago. In that one he issued his usual criticism of borders, ‘lack of welcoming’ by nations to any and all “immigrants”, legal or illegal, “refugees”, legitimate or not, and virtually anyone who decides they can get a better deal in some other sovereign nation than they can get in their own, and shouldn’t have to conform to its laws, values, or culture . You know the shtick…’build bridges, not walls, blah, blah’.

At the time, a big deal was made of the Pope ‘reaching out’ to refugees in Syria. In a visit there and in a ceremony, Francis selected three Syrian families, including six children to “take back with him to the Vatican”. He noted that, while he understood the concern that Europe had about “the refugee influx”, they “deserve to have their basic human rights respected”. Accordingly, the Pope suggested that he was thus doing so for those three families.

It seemed to us at the time that there was a faint odor of “publicity stunt” to the gesture.

I must have missed it, but my impression at the time was that, at least, Pope Francis was “welcoming” these three “refugee” families into the Vatican, safe in their ‘basic human rights’ within the walls of the Holy See.

But researching the stories of the time, I realized that I had gotten a mistaken impression:

“The Vatican said the three Syrian families, including six children, who were taken back with the pope will be supported by the Holy See and cared for initially by Italy’s Catholic Sant’Egidio Community, which for years has been active in providing assistance to refugees in Italy.

So he didn’t apparently bring them into the Vatican confines for an unlimited stay  (if at all) as he admonishes others to do.

“God will repay this generosity,” Francis said.”

So, it seems that the Holy Father was merely bringing those families to the Vatican where their care will eventually become the responsibility of the Italian government.
I wonder what has become of those families since Pope Francis’s expression of charity and generosity…since they have served His Holiness’s ‘high purpose’?            dlh

0

0

Is there a person of lower character in the entire U.S. Senate than Dick Durbin (D,IL)?

CNN Newsroom:‏Verified”  ” Attorney General Barr “has virtually disqualified himself to be the kind of person we expect to stand back and make sure that justice is served,” @SenatorDurbin says when asked if Barr should step down or be impeached. https://cnn account

 Is there a person of lower intelligence in the entire U. S. Congress than Maxine Waters (D, CA) (Whom Trump has dubbed “Low I.Q. Maxine”)?

If you answered “Adam Schiff” to either of these questions, it does not count.

Schiff is in a class by himself! He is far too dishonest to be excused by his very low intelligence; and the depth of his very low intelligence makes him ineligible for any competitive match; Waters still reigns in the low intelligence category because Mr. Schiff has received (from us) the “Lifetime Idiocy and Lack of Positive Achievement” award” and is thus no longer eligible to compete for further such “low intelligence honors”.

This used to be known as “damning with faint praise”:

We believe there should be a special place of honor in our “Hall of of Shameful Antics”. If there were, a category of “Cheap Shots and Really Sleazy Journalistic Mugging”, this one would be included:

This a Wall Street Journal writer would be eligible for immediate introduction into the ‘Hall” based on Wednesday’s column.

Holman Jenkins is the writer. And it should be noted that he is no fan of President Trump. In his column Jenkins details how the Inspector General’s report on how horrifically bungled and dishonest the FBI’s handling of the “investigation” of the Trump campaign was (“The Horowitz Horror Show”)!

Jenkins writes how Horowitz has compiled a report so “factually damning” of the FBI’s investigation from start (the FiSA fraud) to finish (the Mueller fiasco) that the conclusion that it was based on “political bias” is virtually inescapable .

Yet, in concluding his column, Mr. Jenkins could not resist taking a characteristic cheap shot at the President: “…nothing is surprising here (the report’s exposure of the FBI’s efforts to destroy the Trump campaign, and, administration), but (he writes) it raises a question: ‘Why are we impeaching Donald Trump when the people trying to remove him are no better than he is?”

“No better than he is”!!

How disgusting! Jenkins has just detailed how sleazy, dishonest, incompetent, and totally unprofessional was the behavior of the FBI, the press, and opposition political actors, but then must be sure that nobody thinks Donald Trump was a anything more than a deserving victim!!!!

We think that one is an ‘award winner”!

…………

About the FBI achieving usual suspect status

As the DOJ IG’s report is being subject to hearings in the Senate Judiciary committee this week, there is one aspect of the report that rather intrigues us:

“The DOJ watchdog is known to have criminally referred only one FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who has since left the bureau, for altering an email that was used by officials as they prepared an application renewal to present before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

What is intriguing to us is related to the meme that the American public is subjected to over and over in the course of this entire matter concerning the FBI’s behavior in its investigation of the Trump campaign and presidency.

The IG’s report is very critical of that agency’s handling of the investigation; but how often do we hear that all of the bungling, missteps, sloppy work related to it is the fault and responsibility of the top levels of the FBI…not ever anything untoward as far as the “36,000 rank and file, hardworking, dedicated employees who put their lives on the line to preserve America’s way of life, yada, yada…” is suggested?

And yet, the only “criminal referral” that the IG found to be justified is that of a “relatively low level FBI employee way down in the ranks of the Bureau…Kevin Clinesmith…”.

Isn’t it fair to thus conclude that it was the “top-level of the FBI” who corrupted Mr. Clinesmith?

And, if so, isn’t it likely that there are others, perhaps many others at levels of the “hardworking, dedicated, etc, rank and file” who may also have been corrupted by the “top levels”?

And…if also true, how can the American people know how many of the “rank and file” employees among the 36,000 have also been corrupted. It is, after all, fair to assume there are quite a few who were hired and promoted by the ‘bungling, incompetent, and, from their exposed communications, ‘hatred of the current president’-motivated top level ?

I’ve seen few, if any former FBI personnel at any level take on in a high-profile way the incompetence and apparent wrongly-motivated actions of their bureaus. Few “guest appearances” on what the Obama administration had done to their proud former employer.

Go figure.              dlh

0

0

• Revelations in article are full of irony and we highlight them
  
• The Pope could take some lessons from the Trump/Pence Administration on charity advocacy and support for getting the money into the hands of the needy*
• Article below

By Francis X. Rocca at The WSJ ,  Dec. 11,  our annotations in red

Vatican Uses Donations for the Poor to Plug Its Budget Deficit
Only 10% of donations to the Peter’s Pence collection go to charitable works 

Who knew?

0

0

Having been beneficiary of concerted analysis of the Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz’ report by Republican personages, conservative writers and legal beagles explaining how the report goes a long way toward nailing FBI and Justice Department upper echelon for misfeasance, malfeasance, lying, abuse of power etc., along with  statements from Attorney General Barr and US Attorney Durham, we are heartened that there could still be a reckoning afoot for elements of the deep state actors and elected politicians who have been intent on subverting the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Some of that could come from Attorney General Barr and US Attorney Durham’s  pursuit of related matters with their enhanced ability to do so.

None of the Horowitz revelations theoretically affect the strained proposed articles of impeachment vomited up by the Democrat Party apparat yesterday.  Those involve latter day convulsions emanating from what has come to be their rolling impeachment of President Trump, currently focused on an entirely innocent phone call by Trump with the President of Ukraine.

And we are not fantasizing a full reckoning unless the likes of Obama, and a long list of his law enforcement apparatus, along with Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff receive the legal prosecution they deserve for their actual law-breaking and high crimes and misdemeanors. But our cynicism would be surprised by a clear historical record resulting in the ignominy they deserve.

This article at Legal Insurrection sets forth the best single summary of important testimony and commentary we came across today regarding Horowitz’ report and his questioning at a Senate committee hearing today.  Horowitz, while devastating in so many ways, incredibly also concluded that he found no documentary or testamentary evidence of political bias in the FBI persecution of Trump through the use of falsified applications for FISA Court warrants. That defies common sense which led attorney Sara Carter* to comment  “What someone should ask Horowitz is ‘what evidence would you need exactly to constitute bias?’”

We will agree with Democrats who incredibly defend the FISA warrants as not involving a witch hunt as a witch hunt has a presumable predicate – the existence of witches. This was more like a lynching. Lynchers in the deep state did what lynchers do – lie, mob activity, go outside law or use cover of law. That is what happened here – focused on a political vendetta against President Trump and those who elected him.

Mary Chastain writing at Legal Insurrection:

Horowitz: ‘I Think the Activities We Found Here Don’t Vindicate Anybody Who Touched’ the FISA 

“We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed.”

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz lashed out at the FBI during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He released his report on the investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and FISA warrants on former Trump adviser Carter Page a few days ago.

Horowitz reiterated his belief that the evidence provided to his team showed the FBI had an “adequate basis” to begin a collusion probe.

Attorney General Bill Barr and US Attorney John Durham, who is conducting his own investigation, disagreed with the findings. Horowitz told the committee that neither man “provided evidence that changed his key findings.”

However, Horowitz tore into the FBI after his investigation found numerous errors by the agency over the authorization and renewals of FISA warrants on Page.

Former FBI Director James Comey complained about the way people smeared the FBI as Horowitz conducted his investigation in an op-ed in The Washington Post after the report came out. He boasted that the agency “fulfilled its mission — protecting the American people and upholding the U.S. Constitution.” He demanded apologies.

Horowitz has some bad news for Comey:

“The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this,” Inspector General Michael Horowitz said Wednesday while testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on his report.

“We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny,” Horowitz said in his opening statement before the committee.

“We believe this circumstance reflects a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed,” he said.

Horowitz found 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the FISA applications:

The report said that Page’s FISA application omitted information that the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that he had been “approved as an ‘operational contact’ for the other agency from 2008 to 2013.”

The Crossfire Hurricane team also left out Page’s “consensually monitored statements to an FBI” confidential human source saying that he “literally never met” Manafort, as well as Papadopoulos’ monitored statement to the FBI “denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like WikiLeaks in the release of emails.”

Horowitz noted that under FBI policy, every FISA application must contain a “full and accurate” presentation of the facts and that agents must ensure that all factual statements in FISA applications are “scrupulously accurate.”

“These are the standards for all FISA applications, regardless of the investigation’s sensitivity, and it is incumbent upon the FBI to meet them in every application,” Horowitz said Wednesday. “Nevertheless, we found that members of the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were scrupulously accurate.”

“Our review identified significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised, particularly the FBI’s failure to adhere to its own standards of accuracy and completeness when filing [FISA] applications,” Horowitz said Wednesday, noting that he recommended that the FBI “review the performance of all employees who had responsibility for the preparation or approval” of Page’s FISA applications, including “senior officials in the chain of command” of the Crossfire Hurricane team for “any action deemed appropriate.”

Horowitz pointed out to the committee that the “FBI leadership supported relying on” Christopher Steele’s now-famous dossier in order to justify a FISA warrant on Page even though a DOJ attorney advised against it.

The attorney cautioned the FBI over concerns “Steele may have been hired by someone associated with a rival candidate or campaign.”

The Democratic party and failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) brought up FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who changed an “email that he sent to the supervising agent who thereafter relied on it to swear out the final FISA application.” Cruz mentioned that an ordinary citizen would face prosecution if they did the same:

“So the men and women at home need to know what’s happening,” Cruz continued. “A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email, that is in turn used for the basis of a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?

“That’s correct,” Horowitz answered. “That is what occurred.”

Horowitz added that he has never “seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.”

“If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience,” Cruz then posed. “Would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence, be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, be prosecuted for perjury?”

This exchange. Staggering.

Cruz: “A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?”

Horowitz: “That’s correct. That’s what occurred” pic.twitter.com/pnsp7gssT1

— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 11, 2019

“Is it spying?” Senator Graham asks

“It’s illegal surveillance” IG Horowitz responds

That’s also called spying, folks.

The IG knows that the reputation and future of the FBI are on the line, and he’s trying to protect the institution as best he can with word games.

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) December 11, 2019

Is it kind of off-the-charts bad?

Horowitz: It’s pretty bad. pic.twitter.com/t0U812VWjE

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 11, 2019

#Horowitz agrees someone at the FBI needs to be fired. Lots have been fired already or left. The #FISAAbuse against @carterwpage is astonishing – I don’t believe this is the only time. What someone should ask Horowitz is ‘what evidence would you need exactly to constitute bias?’

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) December 11, 2019

Horowitz tells Sen. Kennedy he “agrees completely” that someone at FBI needs to be fired.

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) December 11, 2019

0

0

I know, we sort of committed to Quid-Pro-Joe, but we want what is best for the country so with this new polling and Hillary’s claim “she can beat Trump ‘again'”  and Dick Morris’s suggesting the possibility of her running– well hope springs eternal.  (Links below)

Hillary Clinton statistically even with Biden in hypothetical 2020 Democratic matchup: Poll 

A recent survey that included both former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry found Clinton leading the other Democratic candidates for president by a slim margin.

A Harvard-Harris poll conducted at the end of last month that included the two political figures found the former first lady in the lead among Democratic voters nationwide with 21% support. She was closely followed by current front-runner Joe Biden at 20% support and Bernie Sanders in third at 12%.

Former Clinton Advisor Dick Morris Thinks Hillary May Still Run In 2020  

American Thinker article convinces us our love is not lost . . .

The Democrats’ Nomination is Hillary’s to Lose

0

0