Archive for the ‘Intel’ Category

Byron York’s article should bother everyone from across the political spectrum. It isn’t just about Russian interference. As Byron puts it, “On Feb. 13, the House Intelligence Committee held a meeting at which intelligence officials briefed lawmakers on foreign efforts to influence U.S. elections. By several accounts, the officials told the committee that Russia is working to reelect President Trump.”

Later, Byron added “The Republicans’ objection was not to the idea that Russia is trying to interfere in a U.S. election. That is an accepted fact. The problem was the assessment that Russia is specifically trying to help reelect Trump. That claim, so incendiary in the 2016 election, was unsupported by the evidence, they said.”

This throws the entire briefing into question:

“How should reporting take place?” one member said later. “You would say, ‘We believe X is true based on A, B, C, and D.’ When that doesn’t happen, it’s very suspect.”

“If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you darn well better be ready to answer questions and have evidence to support it,” said another member. When pressed, the member added that officials gave “very vague and unsatisfying answers.”

If the Intel Community can’t tell Congress what they’ve learned with specificity, then that’s questioning the briefing’s credibility. As the one unidentified member said, the IC “darn well better be ready to answer questions and have evidence to support it” if they’re making such accusations.

As they left the meeting, Republicans agreed that the news would leak soon. It almost seemed to be why Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee chairman and impeachment leader, called the meeting in the first place.

This is the committee that shouldn’t be partisan. That’s why Adam Schiff is the worst choice to be a member of it, much less chairman of it. That’s why it isn’t just important to clean out the Intel Community. That’s why it’s essential.

Adam Schiff isn’t the only Democrat that shouldn’t be trusted. Jim Himes is another Democrat that shouldn’t be trusted. Here’s why:

For example, not long after the story broke, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes, an intelligence committee member, appeared on CNN. “I can’t talk about what happened in a classified setting,” Himes said. “But … you don’t need an intelligence briefing to think about what Vladimir Putin might want. Would he want a return to sort of conventional, much more confrontational policy with respect to Russia? Or might he want a president who will criticize everybody on the planet except Vladimir Putin?”

Himes’s point was clear: I can’t talk about it, but of course Putin is working to reelect Trump.

Again, assumptions without proof. If you’re making the assertion that the Russians are interfering in the election, that’s one thing. If you’re claiming that they’re interfering with the purpose of helping a presidential candidate, you’d better have tons of rock solid proof to verify that. This sounds like Schiff’s handiwork.

During the impeachment hearings and in the impeachment trial, Adam Schiff made wild accusations that he didn’t support with verifiable facts. He’d make these allegations, then say that they’re supported by hearsay testimony. That isn’t proof. That’s an unsubstantiated allegation. It’s the equivalent of saying ‘I know he’s guilty because I have a vendetta against him. He’s evil.’ That isn’t proof of anything except that the person making the statement has a vendetta against the accused.

Apparently, the question isn’t whether the IC will interfere in this election. The question apparently is whether Ric Grenell can start cleaning out the nasties in the IC before the election.

Shelby Pierson, the woman who allegedly briefed members of the House Intel Committee, aka the House Committee for Leaking Classified Information, shouldn’t have briefed the Committee last week. That’s the gospel according to Bryan Dean Wright, a self-identified Democrat. Wright also was a former CIA officer. Pierson was allegedly the briefer who told Committee members that Russia was attempting to interfere with the 2020 presidential election and that Russia wanted President Trump to win.

This weekend, Fake News CNN reported “The US intelligence community’s top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN. The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.”

According to Laura Ingraham, Pierson “has a reputation of being injudicious with her words.” Wright said that “Well, when the Intelligence Community sends a briefer to Capitol Hill, they aren’t sending us their best.” Later, Wright said “She was a career satellite imagery specialist. Why, then, did DNI Coats select her for this role in the depths of political analysis, the nuance necessary for that?”

John Ratcliffe, one of the smartest members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, nailed it when he told Maria Bartiromo “Look, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I don’t know anyone in the last three years who has done more to help Vladimir Putin and Russia with their efforts to sow the seeds of discord in American elections and American election security than Adam Schiff has.”

Frankly, that’s being too nice to Schiff. It isn’t that Schiff hasn’t helped Putin a lot. It’s that, in addition to that, Schiff couldn’t identify exculpatory evidence that exonerates a Republican if Schiff’s life depended on it. When I wrote this post, I quoted Rep. Ratcliffe as saying “the narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don’t think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020. That’s not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

It’s time for Democrats to put the US first instead of putting themselves first. Democrats used to be patriots. Democrats aren’t patriots anymore. They’re really anarchists.

That reality, not the briefing, is the bombshell.

It’s pretty clear that Adam Schiff isn’t a trustworthy Democrat. Leaks from his committee have been selective but persistent. The leaks are always slanted against President Trump. Schiff’s hatred of President Trump is understandable. Schiff suffers from an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, aka TDS.

Last week, the Washington Post and the NYTimes reported on a classified briefing about election security. According to the articles, the Russians planned to interfere with the 2020 presidential election. That’s as surprising as finding out that humans need oxygen to survive. The other part of the briefing, allegedly, was that Russia was interfering to help President Trump win re-election.

Chris Wallace tried to get Marc Short to confirm or deny the reliability of the information but wasn’t successful in that attempt. In an interview with Maria Bartiromo, John Ratcliffe, a Republican sitting on the House Intelligence Committee, told Maria that the information briefed to Congress wasn’t accurate:

Here’s what Rep. Ratcliffe said:

“The narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don’t think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020,” he continued. “That’s not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

Adam Schiff is utterly dishonest. Nobody who knows him trusts him. If she doesn’t watch out, Jane Harman might develop the same reputation. As a member of Chris Wallace’s panel yesterday, she was asked “Can you understand the president’s concern, regardless of what the truth is of what the members of the House Intelligence Committee were told, can you understand the president’s concern that this information was brought — of all committees, to House Intelligence run by the president’s nemesis, Adam Schiff, and that it leaks within 24 hours?”

Harman replied “Well, the leaks are terrible — yes, I can understand that concern, but that committee was blown up long ago, sadly. Devin Nunes is a very partisan ranking member.” That’s the worst type of partisanship. Devin Nunes isn’t a partisan. Nunes’ sin was highlighting — in 2014 — that the Russians would interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Nunes repeated the warning in 2015 and in the spring of 2016.

In February, 2018, Nunes published the report that said that said the FBI improperly used the Steele Dossier to obtain a warrant from the FISA Court to improperly surveil Carter Page. Adam Schiff criticized the Nunes Memo and published the Democrats’ memo that essentially said that everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. The Horowitz Report vindicated Nunes and discredited Schiff.

For all that, Harman insists that Rep. Nunes is a partisan. The objective facts indicate the opposite. He’s just a man doing a great job protecting this nation. If the new definition of partisanship is a man protecting his country from international enemies, then let’s see an increase of that type of partisanship.

The US needs dozens more legislators like John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes. They’ve been repeatedly vindicated. That can’t be said about Adam Schiff and Jane Harman. They’re nothing more than Democrat partisan hacks.

While that question seems a little far-fetched initially, let’s look at what’s known thus far. It’s known that:

  1. Democrats have wanted to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration since before President Trump’s inauguration.
  2. Adam Schiff has leaked more classified information than any other Democrat in Congress.
  3. As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff saw more classified information than any Democrat in Congress.
  4. Adam Schiff has ignored tons of exculpatory evidence that would’ve prevented President Trump’s impeachment.
  5. Adam Schiff looked at the same intelligence that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe looked at about the FISA warrant application. He said the FBI did everything right. Ratcliffe and Gowdy raised red flags about the FBI. The Horowitz Report vindicated Ratcliffe and Gowdy. It didn’t vindicate Schiff and the Democrats.
  6. After a recent intel briefing on potential Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election, classified information was leaked to the NYTimes and the Washington Post.
  7. The information that was leaked isn’t accurate.

Thanks to John Ratcliffe’s interview this morning, we know with certainty that the information leaked isn’t accurate. It isn’t just thanks to Rep. Ratcliffe’s interview that we know that it isn’t accurate. It’s because another leak from the intel briefing that said that Russia was interfering with the election to help Bernie Sanders. The initial briefing leak said that Russia is interfering to help President Trump.

It’s impossible for both statements to be true. The Russians aren’t interfering to exclusively help President Trump. The Russians aren’t interfering to exclusively help Sen. Sanders. The only thing that’s certain is that the Russians are attempting to interfere in the election. Who they’re trying to help is unknown. Whether they’re trying to help either side is unknown and unknowable.

Adam Schiff insisted that Republicans have denied the fact that Russians interfered with the 2016 election. That’s BS. Ratcliffe addressed that BS during this interview:

He then went on to explain that “the narrative often from Democrats and the media is that Republicans don’t think the Russians have meddled in our election. They did. They meddled in 2016, they are going to meddle in 2020,” he continued. “That’s not the issue. The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

The House GOP majority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a comprehensive report detailing the ways that Russia interfered with the US Election. Devin Nunes criticized Adam Schiff on that during the impeachment hearings.

Here’s the transcript of the key part of Ratcliffe’s interview:

“The issue is why Russia is being so successful in shaking American confidence in the integrity of our elections. And the reason is, it’s because Democrats keep perpetuating and accentuating and proliferating Russian propaganda for their political gain and for their political motivation against Donald Trump.”

It isn’t a stretch to think that Adam Schiff has told some whoppers. In fact, that’s been proven. While I won’t say that Schiff is a Russian agent, I won’t hesitate in saying that Schiff has helped Russians spread confusion by spreading the Russians’ disinformation. It’s my opinion that the Russians’ primary goal is to spread disinformation. Further, I think it’s the Russians’ goal to help get Bernie elected. That’s my opinion because his policies best fit with their goals.

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: