Archive for the ‘Intel’ Category

This NY Times article starts by saying that Rick Grenell isn’t wasting time draining the Swamp. Shortly after that, the Times’ bias is exposed. The Times wrote “Mr. Patel was best known as the lead author of a politically charged memo two years ago that accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser. The memo was widely criticized as misleading, though an inspector general later found other problems with aspects of the surveillance.”

The Times’ bias is obvious. First, they write that Kash Patel was the lead author of a document that “accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser.” When the Times wrote that the “memo was widely criticized as misleading, though an inspector general later found other problems with aspects of the surveillance”, it means that Adam Schiff criticized it, then the other Democrats on the Committee agreed with Schiff.

The fact that the Times article doesn’t use the name of the report is proof of the Times’ bias. The report is often referred to as the Horowitz Report. It’s considered to be the authoritative report on the FBI’s FISA warrant abuse. This should be one of the first things that Grenell looks into:

During the briefing, which was supposed to focus on coordination between government agencies to fight election interference, not the acts themselves, Republicans challenged the intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the Russians continue to favor Mr. Trump. Some officials said the briefing was not meant to be controversial and that intelligence officials intended to simply reiterate what they had told the Senate Intelligence Committee weeks earlier.

There’s no disputing that the Russians will attempt to interfere in our elections. What’s disputed is whether the Russians are trying to help President Trump.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has levied crippling sanctions on Russia, sold lethal military aid to Ukraine, started negotiating with Europe to import LNG while cutting Europe’s reliance on Russia’s energy. That pipeline hurt Russia’s economy bigtime. Why on God’s green Earth would Putin prefer Trump over Bernie Sanders?

Bernie wants to eliminate US fossil fuel production, which helps Russia economically while strengthening its geopolitical position. Bernie thinks that the US should model itself after Cuba and Russia. Again, why would anyone think that Russia would prefer Trump over Bernie? Bernie honeymooned in Moscow when the Soviet Union still existed.

Grenell should highlight this interview to expose the Democrats’ deceitfulness:

It was Devin Nunes, the man that Adam Schiff has continually attacked, who first talked about Russian election interference in 2014. During the interview, Nunes told Harris Faulkner that he’ll soon be filing a lawsuit against the Washington Post for publishing an article that is demonstrably false.

If Grenell starts cleaning house within the ODNI, he’ll quickly develop enemies. The Intel Community is as swampy as it gets. Ditto with the State Department. Adam Schiff is the personification of the Swamp, too, but that’s another post for another day.

This week, House Republicans boycotted a public hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. They didn’t attend because Democrats refuse to investigate FISA abuse outlined in the Horowitz Report. According to Ranking Member Devin Nunes, the Committee he used to chair goes months between closed-door intelligence briefings.

That leads to this question: why won’t Adam Schiff’s Democrats do the work of oversight and investigation? Perhaps, it’s because he’s implicated in the FISA wrongdoing? We know with certainty that Schiff insisted that the FBI followed the FISA warrant process perfectly. The truth is that they didn’t. This letter identifies “17 serious shortcomings”:


The letter criticizes Schiff’s unserious oversight of the Intel Community. Nunes and the other signatories criticizes Schiff for conducting PR stunt hearings rather than substantive, private hearings and briefings. This is once-powerful committee. They literally deal with protecting Americans both at home and overseas. At least, that’s what they did with Devin Nunes chaired the committee.

Having a failed Hollywood screenwriter as chairman is a surefire way to demolish the Committee’s sterling reputation in the past. That’s what happened with Schiff as chairman. This must be reversed ASAP.

FNC is reporting that Devin Nunes and Chris Stewart, the ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advance Research respectively, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff criticizing the Democrats “for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report.”

In their letter, Nunes and Stewart wrote “Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we’ve hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all.”

“During this period of inadequate oversight, numerous critical issues pertinent to this Committee’s jurisdiction were ignored,” they continued, noting that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his FISA report on Dec. 9 which identified “seventeen serious shortcomings related to the conduct” of the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy aide Carter Page.

“The IG Report was followed by the release of a declassified assessment by the Department of Justice acknowledging that at least two of the four FISA applications lacked probable cause,” they continued. “Despite the seriousness of these issues and our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter.”

It’s obvious that Chairman Schiff isn’t serious about the Committee’s responsibilities. He’s likely the worst chairman in the history of HPSCI, aka the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It’s been 2 months since the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019. Chairman Schiff hasn’t lifted a finger to find out why the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier in their FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. Chairman Schiff didn’t lift a finger to find out why US intelligence agencies were weaponized to take down President Trump.

Further, the Horowitz report established as fact that the Nunes Memo was virtually 100% correct. The Horowitz Report discredited the Schiff Memo. The Schiff Memo took the opposite position on FISA warrant abuse, whether the Steele Dossier was relied on to obtain the FISA warrant and whether the FBI included exculpatory evidence as the Nunes Memo.

That’s likely why Chairman Schiff isn’t interested in conducting hearings into FISA abuse. If he held a hearing into FISA abuses, Republicans would certainly question the Schiff Memo’s fictional assertions.

It’s clear that Democrats are on the defensive. Republicans serving on HPSCI signed this blistering letter. Today, Republicans criticized Jerry Nadler’s mishandling of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler passed a bill to prevent President Trump from implementing a “Muslim ban”. Republicans fought back, saying “This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with securing our country,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., taking on Democrats for calling it a Muslim ban. “…If it really was, as you call it, a Muslim ban, why wouldn’t Indonesia be on this ban? I mean they have a lot of Muslims. This is just inaccurate. You are just spreading this falsity.”

Nadler and Schiff undoubtedly got stung by impeachment. Now, they’re just a pair of losers who didn’t hesitate to impeach a president while ignoring tons of exculpatory evidence. They’ve been exposed as partisans who put partisan politics ahead of patriotism.

Back when this first got started, CNN ridiculed then-Chairman Nunes, suggesting that he was President Trump’s hatchetman:

The Horowitz Report didn’t just dismantle Schiff’s spin. The Horowitz Report utterly demolished Schiff’s spin. Democrats are verifiably dishonest. Putting them in charge of protecting our liberties is beyond foolish. Chairmen Schiff and Nadler shouldn’t be entrusted to run a lemonade stand, much less the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee.

The upper echelons of the FBI better prepared their lives turned upside-down. The Justice Department announced that “at least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause.”

One of the people who should be worried about this news is Chairman Schiff. He should be worried because “Schiff had previously insisted the Page FISA warrants met ‘rigorous’ standards for probable cause, and mocked Republicans for suggesting otherwise.” Then there’s this:

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

This doesn’t mean that the first 2 FISA warrants met the FISA Court’s standards. It simply means that a determination hasn’t been reached on those applications yet.

At minimum, Rosenstein, McCabe and Comey should be very worried. Lying to the FISC should be accompanied by a lengthy stint of gathering striped sunlight. Their actions should result in the DOJ and FBI reaching a large, quick settlement with Carter Page. Clearly, Carter Page was hurt reputationally. When a person is hurt as a result of corruption, the corrupt people need to write checks with a half-dozen zeros to the left of the decimal point.

The Justice Department said the FBI should have discontinued its secret surveillance of Page far earlier than it did because “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.” The DOJ’s letter was revealed in a January 7 court filing unsealed on Thursday.

“Thanks in large part to the work of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets,” the letter states. “DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.'”

At this point, it’s indisputable that corruption was pervasive throughout the top echelon (singular, not plural) of the Obama-Comey FBI. It’s clear, too, that Rod Rosenstein wasn’t the boy scout he claimed to be.

Bipartisan support is growing for tearing down the FISC as it’s currently constructed. The judges that sit on the FISC were warned by Devin Nunes while he still chaired the House Intel Committee about these abuses:

“The way that the court has conducted themselves is totally inappropriate, they ignored clear evidence that we’d presented to them … they did absolutely nothing about it,” Nunes told Fox News host Martha McCallum late Tuesday. “They’ve left Congress no choice but to have to step in and fix this process.”

Finally, there’s this:

It’s understatement to say that Devin Nunes has taken more ill-deserved grief than any other congressman in recent history. In her latest article, Kim Strassel highlights then-Chairman Nunes’ efforts to root out FISC corruption and Judge Rosemary Collyer’s inaction.

It all started with a letter from then-Chairman Nunes to Judge Collyer. In that letter, Nunes wrote “‘the Committee found that the FBI and DOJ failed to disclose the specific political actors paying for uncorroborated information’ that went to the court, “misled the FISC regarding dissemination of this information,” and ‘failed to correct these errors in the subsequent renewals.'” That letter was dated Feb. 7, 2018.

According to the article, “Mr. Nunes asked the court whether any transcripts of FISC hearings about this application existed, and if so, to provide them to the committee.” What he got for his troubles is “a dismissive letter [from Judge Collyer] that addressed only the last request. The judge observed that any such transcripts would be classified, that the court doesn’t maintain a ‘systematic record’ of proceedings and that, given ‘separation of power considerations,’ Mr. Nunes would be better off asking the Justice Department. The letter makes no reference to the Intelligence Committee findings.”

Being the persistent fact-finder that he is, Nunes “tried again in a June 13, 2018, follow-up letter.” In that letter, Nunes wrote that Congress “uncovered evidence that DOJ and FBI provided incomplete and potentially incorrect information to the Court” and that “significant relevant information was not disclosed to the Court.”

It’s worth remembering that then-Ranking Member Schiff published a competing ‘everything-is-fine’ memo. That memo has now been discredited. Here are some of the main claims from the Schiff Memo:

FBI and DOJ officials did not “abuse” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.

In fact, the DOJ and FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirements.

Thanks to the DOJ IG report, we now know that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered the initial email from the CIA that said Carter Page was one of their sources to say that Page wasn’t a CIA source. IG Horowitz made a criminal referral on Clinesmith. Back to Ms. Strassel’s article:

Mr. Nunes asked Judge Collyer to “initiate a thorough investigation.” To assist her, the same month he separately sent FISC “a classified summary of Congress’s findings and facts” to that point. The letter was signed by all 13 Republican members of the Intelligence Committee.

Judge Collyer blew him off. Her letter on June 15, 2018, is four lines long. She informs Mr. Nunes she’s received his letter. She says she’s also received his classified information. She says she’s instructing staff to provide his info to “the judges who ruled on the referenced matters.” She thanks him for his “interest” in the court.

With Judge Collyer throwing the FBI under the bus and with the FBI feeling like it’s getting the short end of the stick from rubberstamp FISC judges, the odds of a major fight between the FISC and the FBI seems likely.

Frankly, the FISC judges seem disinterested. In fact, they don’t seem terribly interested in the details of their cases. That type of attitude is frightening to anyone who appreciates civil liberties. These FISC judges seem indifferent at best.

Finally, it’s apparent that the reputation that the Agenda Media attempted to give Devin Nunes is undeserved. Nunes, unlike Jim Comey and Adam Schiff, was vindicated.

Michael Mukasey dropped a bombshell when he appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Sunday Morning Futures show. During the interview, which lasts 6:00, Mukasey was asked “I want to ask you about what took place last week where Adam Schiff had phone records of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, John Solomon, a journalist, Devin Nunes, we’ll speak momentarily ranking member intel committee, not only get those phone records and let the public that he had not phone records. Everybody was speculating why did Rudy Giuliani call the White House. Why did John Solomon call Rudy Giuliani? Which, really, you’re allowed to make a phone call.”

Mukasey replied “There are statutes, part of the criminal code that restrict the ability of anybody to get those records and they list who can get them under what circumstances and that doesn’t include Congress. It is for law enforcement, for law enforcement purposes, or if the company wants to disclose them to save somebody’s life or prevent serious injury they can do that. Those are the only circumstances. A Congressional committee, as far as I know, has no authority to subpoena that information.

The conversation continued like this:

MARIA BARTIROMO: Are you saying that was a crime?
MICHAEL MUKASEY: The statute restricting that is in title 18. That is the criminal code. You tell me.
MARIA BARTIROMO: Wow. Devin Nunes says he will have a legal strategy come January. We’ll see what that looks like. Do you think he has strong standing?
MICHAEL MUKASEY: I think he has strong standing and there ought to be questions asked and answered how it is that Schiff purported to issue a congressional subpoena for telephone records to the provider, not to the people whose records they were, but to the provider.
MARIA BARTIROMO: Yeah.
MICHAEL MUKASEY: Does that mean for example, if somebody is nominated for a public office and being confirmed by a Senate committee that the Senate committee has the right to look at his telephone records? That is ridiculous. The statute was designed to stop that.

Call me crazy but that might mean trouble ahead for Mr. Schiff. That’s a potential legal bombshell for Chairman Schiff’s Committee Democrats. Committee Democrats voted to approve the impeachment report so they’re just as involved in those civil rights abuses as Schiff is.

If Schiff subpoenaed those phone records, which he’s already admitted, then Schiff might need a criminal defense attorney. After putting those phone records into the report that he wrote, there isn’t much of a defense that Schiff can mount. Here’s the Bartiromo-Mukasey interview:

When President Trump officially announced that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been killed by US special forces, President Trump said that al-Baghdadi died while “whimpering, crying and screaming.” Unfortunately, that’s more than what Democrats have said this morning. Just moments ago, Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, said “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff were not informed in advance of the U.S. special operations forces raid in northwestern Syria in which ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died, Schiff said on ABC’s ‘This Week.'”

Considering the need for secrecy to accomplish this dangerous mission, it isn’t surprising that Pelosi and Schiff weren’t notified. They’ve done nothing to suggest that they’re trustworthy at keeping secrets. In fact, Schiff’s actions have suggested that he isn’t trustworthy whatsoever, especially on a mission this sensitive. This article highlights President Trump’s thinking:

In a press conference, Trump responded to a reporter who asked if he informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the strike ahead of time by confirming that he didn’t. “No, I didn’t,” Trump said. “I wanted to make sure this kept secret, I didn’t want to have men lost, and women, I didn’t want people lost.”

Implicit in that statement is that President Trump didn’t think Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff could be trusted to keep this operation secret. Considering the daily selective leaking from Schiff’s closed door faux impeachment hearings, President Trump’s decision appears well-founded.

To be trusted, people need to be trustworthy. Schiff has proven to be the House’s leading liar and leaker. This was a super-sensitive mission involving dozens of our best operators. Why would President Trump trust Democrats, especially Schiff?

al-Baghdadi is killed

Here’s President Trump’s news conference:

This is a great day for the United States and the world. This isn’t the end of ISIS but it’s a great way to demoralize ISIS. This won’t help with ISIS recruitment, either. One sick bastard has breathed his last breath.

Good riddance. The only downside of this is that Democrats were too partisan to issue a statement congratulating President Trump and thanking US special operators for pulling off a daring, dangerous raid. It would’ve been nice to see Democrats put America first instead of putting Democrats first.

UPDATE: That didn’t take long. After a brief 6-hour delay, Speaker Pelosi finally issued this statement on the US operation that took out the former leader of ISIS:

It isn’t surprising that Speaker Pelosi still sounded bitter towards President Trump.
UPDATE II: This says it all:

Republicans took an important first step in piercing Adam Schiff’s star chamber on Wednesday when Matt Gaetz, Steve Scalise and other Republicans stormed Adam Schiff’s SCIF Sanctuary. I don’t doubt that they’ll be prepared for a second such attempt. That’s why I recommend changing things up the next time testimony is taken.

Instead of storming the gates, Republicans who are allowed into Schiff’s SCIF should take mental notes of what the witnesses say on cross-examination. The minute the minute a witness says something that contradicts their opening statement, that Republican should exit the room, walk right up to a camera, then tell the camera what the witness just said.

If you say that House rules prevent that, I’ll counter that by saying that the Constitution trumps House rules. If you’re wondering what I mean by that, it’s simple. The section of the Constitution that I’m referring to is Article I, Section VI, often referred to as the Speech and Debate Clause. The important part of that clause states “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

That means that a Republican congressman or woman leaving Schiff’s SCIF can’t be questioned for making a speech. That part of the Constitution has been upheld most recently in 1966 and 1972. Remember Harry Reid’s speeches on the Senate floor accusing Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years?

Sen. Reid wasn’t punished for slandering Mitt Romney:

Despite slandering a man from the Senate floor, Harry Reid retired a happy man. If the Speech & Debate Clause protected him while he slandered a presidential candidate, Republicans should use the Speech & Debate Clause to shine sunlight into Schiff’s SCIF. The only precaution I’d make it to not mention anything that’s legitimately classified.

If Democrats insist on fighting dirty, then it’s time that Republicans fight fire with fire. The first thing that I’d state as justification is that if Democrats won’t conduct transparent hearings, then Republicans will deploy the options that the Constitution gives them to provide transparency. I’d also state clearly that I’m prepared to stop the minute Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats actually implement a set of rules that don’t change from witness-to-witness and day-to-day. Mention that there’s lots of different ways to skin Democrats’ rats. It’s important to remind Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats that the Speech & Debate Clause extends to Republicans’ aids, too.

The point is to highlight to the Democrats that there’s an infinite supply of different ways to pierce Schiff’s SCIF. Each time Republicans utilize this option, they’ll expose the Democrats’ dishonesty. In fact, I’d tell the NRCC to highlight Schiff’s dishonesty in an online video. Start with Schiff’s parody speech. Then I’d transfer to the Meet the Press/”more than circumstantial” oldie. Remind people that Schiff is the most corrupt, dishonest politician in DC in several generations.

The point of this is to first level the playing field. Next, it’s important that Democrats understand that you’re just as ruthless as they are. Third, remind them that they’ve got much more to lose that they do. Tonight on Tucker Carlson’s show, Matt Gaetz said that Republicans need to understand that they can’t “use Marquee de Queensbury rules while a pack of rabid hyenas” are attacking you.

Finally, I hate to disagree with my friend Ed Morrissey, albeit ever so slightly. Ed wrote “No one should trust any of these reports until we see the transcripts. In fact, no one should put any confidence in this process until it gets conducted openly, honestly, and fairly.”

I’ll stipulate that we won’t know with certainty that we’re reading the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth until the testimony transcripts are made public. That being said, I’m pretty confident that I know the truth because John Ratcliffe has proven himself in the hearings I’ve watched to be an honest man with lots of intelligence. When he told Martha McCallum that he personally cross-examined Taylor and got him to admit that “neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible.”

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has been caught lying multiple times. I’ll stipulate that we can’t trust Schiff’s statements but I’m fairly comfortable trusting John Ratcliffe because Ratcliffe has a history of being trustworthy and he was the man who questioned Taylor. Getting the information from the man who questioned Taylor matters because it isn’t hearsay like most of the information that’s gotten leaked thus far.

Finally, I’m willing to trust the transcripts.

Anyone that thinks that Juan Williams isn’t living in a fantasy world just needs to read this article. The article is ostensibly about President Trump firing Dan Coats as his DNI, then appointing Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R-TX), to replace Coats full-time.

Williams takes Umbridge with the decision, saying “Coats fell out of favor with Trump for publicly confirming Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Trump appointee also raised eyebrows at a conference when he revealed Trump failed to consult with him before extending an invitation to the White House to Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

How dare the President invite a foreign head of state to the White House without first getting Dan Coats’ approval! Who does President Trump think he is, going over Dan Coats’ head?

Next, Williams expresses his indignation over this:

Trump will nominate Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) to fill the role. Ratcliffe is a pure political player. He is a direct threat to the nonpartisan reputation of America’s intelligence agencies and to their ability to protect the country by producing unbiased, first-rate information.

Notice that Williams didn’t mention that Ratcliffe is evidence-based because he’s a former US attorney and a damn good one at that. That’s irrelevant to Williams when he has the opportunity to unfairly criticize a nominee.

Further, what planet is Williams living on? He thinks “America’s intelligence agencies” haven’t been politicized? Seriously? Has he ever heard of people like Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok and John Brennan? Or is Williams stupid enough to think that they aren’t political hacks?

Later, Williams wrote that Ratcliffe “auditioned for the role last week, when he subjected Robert Mueller to harsh questioning when the former special counsel appeared before Congress.” Here’s Ratcliffe’s questioning:

The Mueller Report is a one-sided report. Further, Mueller’s report ignored Special Counsel guidelines while writing Volume II. If that’s treating Mueller harshly, it’s because he deserved it. Mueller wrote an impeachment op-ed instead of writing a confidential report outlining the indictments and declinations of the Mueller team.

Earlier tonight, President Trump “ordered U.S. intelligence officials to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into ‘surveillance activities’ directed at the president’s 2016 campaign.”

Let the finger-pointing begin. Comey, Clapper and Brennan are already attempting to incriminate each other. In the end, I suspect that they’ll each be ‘successful’, with each of them getting prosecuted and convicted or getting prosecuted and flipping on the other 2. Either way, the chances of this turning out well for that trio isn’t high.

Let’s get serious about this for a minute. Democrat spinmeisters point to the DOJ’s IG report and insist that it’s a comprehensive report on the origins of the faux investigation. It isn’t because it isn’t exhaustive. It can’t reach the places that the AG’s investigation can get to. First, the IG can’t call in people from all of the IC agencies. It’s limited by statute to the agency it’s assigned to.

Next, the IG can’t interview people who worked inside the DOJ but have since left. That means the IG can’t interview the central figures in the investigation. Specifically, it prohibits the IG from interviewing Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok and Page. Ditto with Clapper and Brennan.

Trump also gave Barr “full and complete authority” to declassify information related to the investigation, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. The notice comes as Barr is conducting a review of what he has described as “spying” on members of the Trump campaign during the investigation into Russian interference.

Sanders said Trump had directed the intelligence community to “quickly and fully” cooperate with the investigation at Barr’s own request. “Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions,” Sanders said.

This gives Attorney General Barr wide latitude to investigate the investigators. Last Sunday, Trey Gowdy made a rather interesting prediction during Maria Bartiromo’s show:

Considering the fact that Trey Gowdy a) has seen these documents and b) is one of the most honest people to ever serve in Congress, I’m betting that there’s some former employees of the FBI and the IC who should be exceptionally worried.