Its always a good Friday to call this pope to task

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

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

About some of the usual suspects

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

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on About some of the usual suspects

Pope’s Pence (not Mike)

 

By Francis X. Rocca at The WSJ , 

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?

VATICAN CITY—Every year, Catholics around the world donate tens of millions of dollars to the pope. Bishops exhort the faithful to support the weak and suffering through the pope’s main charitable appeal, called Peter’s Pence.

What the church doesn’t advertise is that most of that collection, worth more than €50 million ($55 million) annually, goes toward plugging the hole in the Vatican’s own administrative budget, while as little as 10% is spent on charitable works, according to people familiar with the funds. 

The little-publicized breakdown of how the Holy See spends Peter’s Pence, known only among senior Vatican officials, is raising concern among some Catholic Church leaders that the faithful are being misled about the use of their donations, which could further hurt the credibility of the Vatican’s financial management under Pope Francis.

Wait just a minute, this pope is a scientist, progressive theological reformer, Marxian economist, extremely knowledgeable about valuations of land, things, . . . prolific at shaming,  . . . surely his credibility is without question?

The Vatican is currently embroiled in a scandal over opaque real-estate investments in London, which has triggered a power struggle within the Vatican’s bureaucracy and led to the dismissal of its chief financial regulator. Last month, the Vatican was suspended from an international network of anti-money-laundering watchdogs.

Francis has been Pope almost seven years

Meanwhile, the Holy See is struggling with a growing budget deficit, with the pope warning cardinals of the “grave impact” on the body’s economic future. The Vatican’s continuing financial problems reflect a lack of progress on improving its management and finances, which Pope Francis was elected in 2013 with a mandate to overhaul, following allegations of corruption, waste and incompetence there.

Francis has been Pope almost seven years

Under church law, Peter’s Pence is available to the pope to use at his discretion in any way that serves his ministry, including the support of his administration.

Well, that’s convenient!

The collection’s website says that, to support the pope’s charitable works, “Peter’s Pence also contributes to the support of the Apostolic See and the activities of the Holy See,” emphasizing activities that help “populations, individuals and families in precarious conditions.”

“also”  hmmm,  . . . more like “mostly goes to”

The assets of Peter’s Pence now total about €600 million, down from about €700 million early in the current pontificate, largely on account of unsuccessful investments, said the people familiar with the funds’ use.

There is that word again — “investments”   — code for devils dung

The use of Peter’s Pence donations mostly to plug the budget deficit is particularly sensitive for Pope Francis, who began his pontificate by calling for a “poor church for the poor,” and has continually emphasized the church’s mission to care for and advocate on behalf of the most vulnerable.

While shooting the gift horses in the mouth

The head of the Vatican’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment on the use of the funds.

Surprise, (but ask them about CO2)

Peter’s Pence, a special collection from Catholics around the world every June, is billed as a fundraising effort for the needy. The Vatican’s website for the collection, www.peterspence.va, describes it as a “gesture of charity, a way of supporting the activity of the Pope and the universal Church in favoring especially the poorest and Churches in difficulty. It is also an invitation to pay attention and be near to new forms of poverty and fragility.”

Indulgences were a gesture for charity, but we digress

A section of the website dedicated to “works realized” describes individual grants, such as €100,000 in relief aid to survivors of last month’s earthquake in Albania or €150,000 for those affected by cyclone Idai in southeastern Africa in March.

The 10% had to go somewhere and it sure as hell wasn’t going to go to those obsessed pro-lifers

Local church leaders echo the Vatican’s line when soliciting contributions. According to the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “The purpose of the Peter’s Pence Collection is to provide the Holy Father with the financial means to respond to those who are suffering as a result of war, oppression, natural disaster and disease.”

Sounds like a conspiracy

But for at least the past five years, only about 10% of the money collected—more than €50 million was raised in 2018—has gone to the sort of charitable causes featured in advertising for the collection, according to people familiar with the matter.

False advertising seven years in the making

Meanwhile, about two-thirds of the money has been used to help cover the budget deficit at the Holy See, these people said. The Holy See consists of the central administration of the Catholic Church and the papal diplomatic network around the world. In 2018, the budget deficit reached roughly €70 million on total spending of about €300 million, reflecting chronic inefficiencies, rising wage costs and hits to investment income.

Its too bad because charities do have overhead, and going around telling people to produce less and tax more costs dough

Donations to Peter’s Pence have dropped notably in recent years, to over €50 million in 2018 from over €60 million in 2017, these people said. Concern among ordinary Catholics over the church’s clerical sex-abuse crisis, as well as about the Vatican’s financial transparency, have weighed on donations, these people said. Another decline is expected for 2019.

Word about His Phoniness gets around

The Peter’s Pence fund, which is managed by the Secretariat of State, the Holy See’s executive, has been under increased scrutiny since October, when Vatican police raided the Secretariat’s offices and those of the Vatican’s financial watchdog as part of an investigation into a large investment in a building in London’s upmarket Chelsea district. Vatican officials familiar with the secretariat’s operations believe at least some of the money for the controversial investment came from Peter’s Pence.

This is the punishment in Francis World when you don’t perform

In November, Pope Francis said that he had authorized the raids because of apparent corruption, but he defended the practice of investing Peter’s Pence donations in real estate and other assets, rather than using it for charity immediately.

Really, how ironic a use of devils dung

“When the money from Peter’s Pence arrives, what do I do? I put it in a drawer? No. This is bad administration. I try to make an investment and when I need to give, when there is a need, throughout the year, the money is taken and that capital does not devalue, it stays the same or it increases a bit,” the pope said last month.

EUREKA! THE POPE UNDERSTANDS WEALTH ACCUMULATION PUT TO USE CREATES MORE WEALTH

But no more than a quarter of the annual Peter’s Pence contributions is available for investments, after the bulk is spent on the Vatican’s operating costs, according to the people familiar with the fund.

now if he weren’t such a fine for me not for thee guy


*During the last Operation Gift Cards visit to the Walter Reed National Military Hospital in Bethesda, Md., the five December representatives of the program met Vice President Mike Pence. He individually thanked them for their service and continued support for the wounded troops there.

The program has 75 organizations or individuals who have become co-sponsors to the program by purchasing $1,000 of Post Exchange gift cards in $25 amounts, and in doing so, they qualify for the opportunity to send one representative to hand deliver their donation to the wounded troops.

Seventy-three of the co-sponsoring organizations are from Connecticut. Each representative is responsible for his or her own expenses for the two-day trip, that enables 100% of the donation of the co-sponsor to be delivered to the wounded troops.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Pope’s Pence (not Mike)

MR. MAGOO* TESTIFIES

MICHAEL ‘MAGOO”* TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY

Sen. Graham: “Mr. Magoo, Do you know what the term ‘political bias’ means?”

Magoo: Oh yeah..

S.G.: “You ever see any around Washington?”

Magoo: “Nope.”

S.G.: “What do you think of the FBI?”

Magoo: “Glad I don’t work there.”

S.G. “Do you know Lisa Page and Peter Strzok?”

Magoo: ” Cute couple.”

S.G.: What did you think of their emails to each other while investigating the Trump campaign?”

Magoo: ” Don’t read other people’s mail.”

S.G: “With 17 very serious ‘mistakes, errors, or instances of mishandling evidence’, all going against the investigation’s target, did you think there could be some ‘political bias’ in the way this investigation was handled?”

Magoo: “Nope”

S.G.: “Thank you, Mr. Magoo. You may step down…er, watch your step…”

MR. MAGOO TESTIFIES

“Didn’t see no ‘political bias’! Nossir.”                  dlh*

*Apologies to Mr. Quincy Magoo who had far more vision than Mr. Horowitz

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on MR. MAGOO* TESTIFIES

Question for Horowitz: “what evidence would you need exactly to constitute bias?”*

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

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Question for Horowitz: “what evidence would you need exactly to constitute bias?”*

WAFFLING ON WHO TO SUPPORT IN DEM PRIMARY

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

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on WAFFLING ON WHO TO SUPPORT IN DEM PRIMARY

About the Horowitz finding of “no textual or testimonial evidence”

US Attorney John Durham issued a challenge to Horowitz’s findings that indicate this is not over

Scads of “textual evidence” exists to indicate political bias of key investigators

As regards Horowitz’s investigation: If you can’t go outside the department then how useful is the investigation?

Investigating trained investigators of the upper echelons in the DOJ and FBI,  and being limited to that closed-loop/ incestuous circle, who largely controlled the internal paper trail and got where they are by definition of good old boy network —  IG Horowitz has found “no textual or testimonial evidence” of political bias (see previous posts today) in his investigation of the propriety of FISA  applications in the departments investigation of alleged collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia.  IG Robert Mueller previously concluded there was no collusion.

In the report issued today Horowitz also reported a finding that there were sufficient qualifiers to justify the FISA applications to spy on Trump’s campaign (even as they found no collusion).  US Attorney Durham has challenged that (see below) . However his report does list a couple dozen “serious errors” and they would seem to be the exceptions that pretty much swallow the finding.  Here are some posts by our go-to journals explaining some of the events.


Matt Vespa at Townhall:  (excerpts)

DOJ IG: FISA Application for Spy Warrants Against Trump Official Riddled with Errors

Well, it’s dropped. The report from the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office on FISA abuses against the Trump campaign during the Obama administration has dropped. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was ripped for deviating from department policy concerning the application process. The FBI used the unverified Trump dossier, which was a Democrat-funded opposition research project. The Hillary Clinton campaign hired research firm Fusion GPS, who then contracted ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele to compile the document. It’s riddled with inaccuracies. And it’s the work that set off this Russian collusion nuke in the media. It was a myth.  . . .

There are over a dozen instances where DOJ IG Michael Horowitz cites as when the bureau omitted information, including exculpatory evidence when applying for surveillance warrants against Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign (via Fox News)   . . .

The report, which is over 400 pages, also notes that there was no evidence of political bias concerning the FBI’s operation to infiltrate the Trump campaign  (via NYT) [emphasis mine]:  . . .

A long-awaited report by the Justice Department’s inspector general released on Monday sharply criticized the F.B.I.’s handling of a wiretap application used in the early stages of its Russia investigation but exonerated former bureau leaders of President Trump’s accusations that they engaged in a politicized conspiracy to sabotage him.

Investigators uncovered “no documentary or testimonial evidence” of political bias behind official actions related to the investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, said the report, which totaled more than 400 pages. The F.B.I. had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to lawfully open the investigation, and its use of informants to approach campaign aides followed procedures, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, determined.

But Mr. Horowitz also uncovered substantial dysfunction, carelessness and serious errors in one part of the sprawling inquiry: the F.B.I.’s applications for court orders approving a wiretap targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. He found that one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer altered a related document and referred the lawyer for possible prosecution.

Given the highly fraught context of investigating someone linked to a presidential campaign, the report said, the Crossfire Hurricane investigators knew their work would be scrutinized — yet they nevertheless “failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were ‘scrupulously accurate.’”
The findings on the wiretap application showed that when it mattered most — with the stakes the greatest and no room for error — F.B.I. officials still made numerous and serious mistakes in wielding a powerful surveillance tool. Mr. Horowitz’s discovery calls into question the bureau’s surveillance practices in routine cases without such high-stakes political implications.

Sorry, as we’ve said before, this is simply not believable. Why wasn’t the Trump dossier verified? There are errors that a simple Google search could’ve debunked portions of the Steele dossier or at the very minimum raised red flags about the accuracy of the document. That didn’t happen and disgraced fired deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe refused to answer any questions about whether there was any verification process concerning this document when he testified before Congress. Why? Even members of British intelligence were skeptical of this dossier. 

On a sidebar, the antics between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page blows that narrative up. Strzok was fired for his tens of thousands of texts, many of which were anti-Trump, that he sent to bureau lawyer Lisa Page during the 2016 election. Strzok was also having an extramarital affair with Page. And Page noted that those texts meant exactly what they meant. And these two had a meeting with McCabe, allegedly, where they discussed an “insurance policy” regarding a Trump presidency. That “policy” is reportedly a reference to the Trump dossier.   . . .

Also at Townhall:  (bold our emphasis)
New and Rare Durham Statement Shows IG Report Doesn’t Come Close to Telling the Whole Story

On Monday afternoon Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz released the long awaited report into FISA abuse during the 2016 presidential election. 

The report found that while there were nearly two dozen serious errors FBI agents made while applying for a FISA warrant, the investigation was justified. 
But in a rare statement released Monday afternoon, U.S. Attorney John Durham  issued a serious disagreement with the report’s findings and said it was limited in scope.

“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,” Durham said. “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.” 

Inspector General investigators are only capable of interviewing individuals in the Department of Justice. They cannot access information from other federal government agencies or compel anyone outside of DOJ to be interviewed. Further, the Inspector General can only recommend prosecution for those found to have engaged in illegal wrongdoing.

Durham, who has worked for Republican and Democrat administrations, was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr earlier this year to conduct a criminal investigation into how the Russia investigation was started and how a FISA warrant was obtained to spy on the Trump campaign. His investigative authority is broad and unlike the Inspector General, he has the ability to prosecute. His office is capable of issuing subpoenas outside of the Department of Justice, to individuals throughout the federal government, overseas and more.

The results of Durham’s investigation are expected to be released in the coming weeks.  

Cortney O’Brien at Townhall:

Page 341 of FISA Report Made Mark Meadows Say ‘Wow’

The report into the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign is out, all 430 pages of it. It describes how the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page, one of then-candidate Donald Trump’s former foreign policy advisers. The application was riddled with errors, as Matt covered in his initial report. And it again confirmed that the intelligence agency used an uncorroborated dossier about Trump and Russia authored by former British spy Christopher Steele to obtain the wiretapping warrant.

The FISA report found 17 errors in total, but it also found no political bias on the part of the FBI and concluded that their investigation was justified.
Still, there was a page near the back of the report that caught the eye of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and made him say “wow.” As it turns out, the FBI took advantage of a briefing with the Trump campaign to use in their investigation.

Wow… page 341. IG says FBI used an Aug. 2016 ‘defensive briefing’ with the Trump campaign as an “opportunity to gather potentially relevant investigative information” about Michael Flynn

 They used defensive briefings for their investigation into the Trump campaign

 Wow

— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019
He was irked again after flipping a few more pages.

Predictably, some media allies of Democrats spinning hard. This is what the investigation was about, pg 361:

IG found “numerous serious factual errors and omissions in the FISA applications … that undercut certain allegations in the applications.”

That, alone, is indefensible

— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019

He’s not the only official to sound off on the FBI’s inconsistencies and alleged FISA abuse. Attorney General William Barr said today’s report is proof that the FBI relied on the thinnest of suspicions to warrant their surveillance of the Trump campaign.

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” he said.

Even U.S. Attorney John Durham, who rarely issues public statements, spoke up on this occasion.

“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.”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on About the Horowitz finding of “no textual or testimonial evidence”

As expected IG whitewash of the malcontents

By the time this gets posted, the report will be out, either confirming or refuting its accuracy

WILL THE HOROWITZ REPORT SPLIT THE BABY? 
Of course it will!

Except that, as one of the best political reporters there is, Sheryl Atkisson suggests, it will tend heavily toward not holding accountable the previous administration’s wrongdoers.

We have noted previously that Michael Horowitz just doesn’t seem to ever detect any “political bias”. Horowitz evidently wouldn’t know “political bias” if it came up and introduced itself and put on a demonstration. (Recall in his earlier “report”, he couldn’t determine that Peter Strzok and Ms. Page had a ‘political bias bone’ in their bodies.)

There is significance in the fact that Michael Horowitz WAS appointed by Barack Obama. Has there been any Obama appointee who has not ‘toed the line’ on any Obama administration corrupt action, no matter how grievous? dlh


Sheryl Atkinson writing at The Hill

Here are five things for the public to remember as they hear and read news stories about the upcoming findings:

Most news reporters and analysts who comment on the Horowitz report will not have read it. They will rely on other news reports and/or spin provided by partisans and others with vested interests.

Most news reporters and analysts who read any of the report will only review the summary and/or conclusions. Some will read sections pointed out to them by partisans and others with vested interests to prove their particular points.

The report will offer plenty of criticism, but often accept the most innocent explanation for any inappropriate act, barring an explicit admission to the contrary.

Horowitz is not an island. There are other officials at the inspector general’s office, including the chief counsel, who weigh in on and impact what the report ultimately says.

Horowitz’s authority is limited. He doesn’t have the power to prosecute anybody. Even when he has referred an official for possible prosecution, he has to refer the case to the Justice Department — the very agency where the official has friends and colleagues, possibly even co-conspirators. The Department of Justice can — and frequently does — toss aside Horowitz’s recommendations.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on As expected IG whitewash of the malcontents

Horowitz predicted to protect deep state institutions

Two informative recaps and predictive articles this morning in anticipation of the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report regarding FISA court abuse in FBI applications targeting people associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian collusion / interference investigation.

At RedState by Streif:  (excerpt) (bold our emphasis)

Don’t Look for What Questions the DOJ IG Report Asks, Look for the Ones It Avoids

Here are some key points to keep in mind. Much is being made of Horowitz being “non-partisan.” This may very well be true but he seems to clearly be an institutionalist who is just as focused on protecting the brand of the Department of Justice as he is on revealing the truth to his employers, that would be you and me, the taxpayers. To that end, I would be shocked if he found anything really wrong anywhere rather than focusing on screw-ups and malfeasance of individuals and giving the benefit of the doubt to the actions of DOJ’s National Security Division which managed the investigation of the Trump campaign.

Expect the FBI to be largely exonerated other than findings of bad acts by rogue actors or well-intentioned over-zealousness. I’ve read that Horowitz may not find any partisan motive in the actions of Strzok and Page and would not be shocked as it may well be possible to say that their actions were justified by the facts available to them despite their political bias. This, I think, is the clear canary in the coal mine test for the entire report. A finding of no bias in the most egregious cases and a treating of all other malfeasance, like the forging of a court document, as an individual factoid rather than as part of a fact pattern is a clear sign that the objective is to protect the Department of Justice and protect the FBI.  . . .

This we found particularly chilling by implication . . .

Keep in mind that a FISA warrant permits what is called “two hops” or “three hops.” What that means is that if Carter Page was the subject of a FISA warrant, everyone he talked to is subject to surveillance (one hop), everyone they talked to is subject to surveillance (two hops) and, potentially, everyone the second person talked to is subject to surveillance (three hops). So while Trump, himself, may not have been a direct target, with two hops he and all of his senior campaign staff were almost certainly under direct surveillance. See this from NBC:

These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact; in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.” While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page. (The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)   

. . .

The report should clear up the extent to which the Steele Dossier was used to undertake an unprecedented investigation of a major party candidate for president and how that fraudulent document was laundered.

There is a claim being made everywhere on the left that the FISA warrant issued concerning Carter Page would have been justified without the Steele Dossier and without an FBI attorney falsifying a court document. If so, we need to know what that evidence was and why Carter Page has not been charged with either lying to Congress, lying to federal agents, or with violating FARA. If the threshold for justifying such an intrusive warrant is possible against a demonstrably and proven innocent American, then the whole system is flawed beyond redemption. We also need to understand why Rod Rosenstein continued a warrant that probably allowed surveillance of the President of the United States.

  . . .

There have been stories that Attorney General William Barr is not satisfied with Horowitz’s findings. I don’t know if that is true and I certainly haven’t seen it reported by anyone who hasn’t been up to their eyebrows pushing Russia Hoax crap and Fusion GPS spank material for three years. I suspect that Barr might well disagree with some of Horowitz’s findings because his man, Connecticut US Attorney John Durham, is conducting a criminal probe over multiple agencies and has access to much more information than does Horowitz. You need to look at these stories as being a repeat of the disinformation pushed by the press that Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report reflected Barr’s intentions to protect the President and misrepresented Mueller’s report. If he doesn’t buy all of Horowitz’s findings, then they will simply say, “here he goes again.” Or that Durham is investigating “debunked’ “conspiracy theories.”

The salient question is this: If the FBI did have reason to suspect that the Trump campaign contained one or more people in senior positions who were actively working with a foreign government that was not Ukraine, then why was Donald Trump, the candidate, never briefed on the problematic staffer and given the chance to fire him but rather subjected to a degree of political espionage by the federal government that the US has not known since the break-in at the Watergate in 1972?


Law Professor Margot Cleveland writing at The Federalist:   (excerpts)

13 Things To Look For In The Inspector General FISA Abuse Report

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation was limited in scope and thus will leave unanswered many of the questions surrounding the FBI’s targeting of the Trump campaign.

1. Concerns about Federal Surveillance of Carter Page  . . .

the foremost question the IG’s report should address concerns the DOJ’s basis for believing that probable cause supported the Page FISA applications. Because Page is a U.S. citizen, to obtain a surveillance order under FISA, “the DOJ needed to establish probable cause that Page was ‘an agent of a foreign power’ and was engaged in ‘activities [that] involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.’” And “probable cause needed to exist for the initial October 21, 2016 warrant and for each subsequent renewal.”

2. What Criminal Allegations Existed Against Page?  . . .

While the DOJ has released redacted versions of the four FISA applications, the specific criminal statutes Page’s activities purportedly violated have not yet been revealed. The IG should both identify the crimes the FISA applications relied upon and address whether the FISA applications established probable cause.

This analysis will be key because everything known to date indicates the DOJ’s FISA applications failed to present evidence sufficient to establish probable cause that Page violated U.S. criminal law . . .

3. Did the FBI Follow the Woods Procedures?  . . .

The Woods procedures, named after FBI agent Michael Woods, “were instituted in April 2001 to ‘ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause”  . . .

4. Why Did Page’s Application Not Follow the Usual Path?  . . .

5. Was Any Application Info False or Misleading?   . . .

This area of the IG’s report should be massive given the many concerns already identified in congressional testimony and exposed in publicly released documents.  . . .

6. Hiding the Steele Dossier Commissioners From the Court  . . .

7. Why the FBI Lied about Steele’s Press Contacts  . . .

8. Other Information Questioning Steele’s Reliability  . . .

9. The Bruce Ohr Problems  . . .

10. Then There’s Nellie Ohr  . . .

12. The Real Origin of Crossfire Hurricane  . . .

13. What Role Did Joseph Mifsud Play?  . . .

These are merely the questions begging for answers from the already publicly available information, but Horowitz had access to substantially more details and his investigation should have uncovered even more facts. Horowitz’s report should summarize the results of his investigation to make clear that he followed the leads where they led.

One investigative trail of particular importance is the communications accessed and intercepted pursuant to the FISA applications. Did the FBI access communications between Page and Trump campaign members? If so, what communications, involving what players?

If Horowitz conducted a fair and thorough investigation, he should have the answers to these questions—and so should we soon.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Horowitz predicted to protect deep state institutions

Not holding our breath

Monday is the ‘big day” for release of  IG Horowitz’s report on FISA court applications regarding investigations of then candidate Trump. Presumed knowledgeable sources have signaled not to expect much and even that it might be a whitewash protecting deep-state actors.

Image result for waiting gif

Maybe the report will point to a fall guy with fingerprints on a smoking gun that folks may understand as more of a peashooter.  Democrats will portray any violations by their people as mere technical violations in their exuberance for doing their job to protect the integrity of the election process.  Yah right.

From the Washington Examiner:

The report on possible abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be released Monday, setting up a possible conflict between Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Attorney General William Barr.

Reports suggest Horowitz, who headed the investigation, and Barr diverge on whether the FBI was justified in launching its 2016 counterintelligence inquiry into possible ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, later wrapped into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mueller concluded Russia interfered but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between President Trump and Russia.

Barr disagrees with Horowitz’s supposed conclusion that the FBI had sufficient information to justify launching its Trump-Russia investigation, according to the Washington Post, and Barr isn’t persuaded by Horowitz’s findings and believes agencies outside of the DOJ, such as the CIA, might be able to reveal details that could change Horowitz’s mind. The investigation conducted by Barr’s right-hand man, U.S. Attorney John Durham, uncovered information that could buttress Barr’s doubts, according to a lawyer associated with Durham’s team.

Dropping the report tomorrow means it will be before an actual House Judiciary Committee impeachment vote by House Democrats (who else?). Though it might include some embarrassments for them we do not expect that it will cool their jets, (one reason why they moved to a focus on Ukraine rather than the Russia connected FISA abuses. Maybe it will make them more insane.

The process the House Democrats have used and are intent on furthering for the final vote to impeach is so unfair that it is unlikely to cost Trump any Republican support.  Their pursuit is more about the House Democrats own insulated insanity and that of their base who they feel are itching for this. They do not see a downside to being so partisan.

Their own deep-state operatives are so dirty it is felt necessary to throw out as much innuendo and lies as they can. They are trying to protect their base congressional district  support. Their machine politics need impeachment to fuel their rabid base or they risk loosing some of that “energy” to the extent of loosing not only toss-up seats and all those who are running in seats Trump won, but normally semi-safe bluish seats. There is no downside in their view only necessity. They may see themselves loosing some no-party folks, but those voters don’t pay the bills, and they may be doing this eyes wide open that Trump will now win reelection.

There is also no downside because the dominant liberal media will work overtime to protect them, avoid damaging matters and concentrate on sensational accusations, change the subject, etc..  The media has a big part in the impeachment coup. They will not report the implications of the Horowitz findings if significantly damaging, they will accentuate any exoneration (how they say we spun the Mueller report)  and they will continue to cover Nadler’s impeachment show hoping to do as much damage as they can produce, as essentially producers of this theater).  They really should add a credit line to the proceedings “Produced by your friends at leftist media.org”

More from the Washington Examiner article:

Barr and Durham have not said when they will release their conclusions, but Trump weighed in Tuesday when asked if he’d heard about the disagreement between Horowitz and Barr.

“If what I read is correct, that would be a little disappointing, but it was just one aspect of the report, so we’ll see what happens,” Trump said.

Trump said he heard from the news that Horowitz’s report would be “very powerful” and “devastating” and also raised expectations for what Barr and Durham might uncover.

“I do think the big report to wait for is the Durham report,” Trump said. “That’s the one that people are really waiting for. And he’s highly respected, and he’s worked very hard and he’s worked long hours, I can tell you, and gone all over the world. So we’ll see.”

Image result for waiting gif

Durham’s portfolio of powers is much more than Horowitz’s and there are reports that he has uncovered criminal behavior and is pursuing it.   Not holding our breath on that one either given the depth of the deep state.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Not holding our breath