Archive for the ‘Weaponized Government’ Category

Gen. Flynn won a major victory in court today. On the other hand, this was a difficult day for Joe Biden. Peter Strzok’s note is particularly troublesome:

Attending the meeting were Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, Jim Comey, the FBI Director, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. TRANSLATION: Susan Rice = NSA; Obama = P; Biden = VP; Comey = D & Yates = DAG

Remember that Biden was asked about what he knew about Gen. Flynn by George Stephanopoulos in this interview:

Stephanopoulos: I do want to ask you about Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Trump and the move by the Justice Department to dismiss the case against him for lying to the FBI. The President said yesterday that the move was justified because President Obama targeted Flynn. He called it, quote, the biggest political crime in US history. Your former Senate colleague Charles Grassley has added that Flynn was entrapped and asked on the Senate floor “What did Obama and Biden know? When did they know it?” So what did you know about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn and was there anything improper done?
BIDEN: I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn, number one, and number two, this is all about diversion. This is the game this guy plays all the time. The country is in a crisis. We’re in an economic crisis, a health crisis.

That’s about 2 minutes into the interview. After Biden’s full-throated denial, Stephanopoulos returned to the subject:

I want to press that. You say you didn’t know anything about but you were reported to be at a January 5, 2017 meeting where you and the President were briefed on the FBI’s plan to question Michael Flynn over those conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Biden: No, I thought you asked me about whether I had anything to do with him being prosecuted. I’m sorry. I was aware that they asked for an investigation but that’s all I know about it and nothing else.

I’ll bet most people didn’t notice the fatal flaw in Biden’s reply. Biden said “I thought you asked me whether I had anything to do with him getting prosecuted.” The FBI interview with Gen. Flynn didn’t happen until January 24, 2017, 4 full days after Biden became formerVice President Biden. As a private citizen, he wouldn’t have had any influence to get Flynn prosecuted. Further, Biden’s denial, which was categorical, was a lie. He knew much more about the investigation. According to Strzok’s note, he’s the person who brought up the Logan Act at the January 5, 2017 meeting as a way of investigating Gen. Flynn. Don’t forget that FBI field officers with the DC Bureau had interviewed Gen. Flynn and wanted to drop Operation Crossfire Razor, the FBI code name for the Flynn investigation:

On Jan. 4, 2017, two weeks before the Trump inauguration, FBI agents at a lower level, where the real work is done, prudently tried to close the Flynn investigation, citing the absence of any derogatory information or other facts that would enable the bureau to keep the case open.

Before the now-infamous January 5 meeting, FBI field agents tried closing the Flynn investigation. That investigation was kept open by “the 7th floor”, which is where then-FBI Director Jim Comey’s office was.

Thanks to the investigation into the investigators, Jim Comey refused to renew his security clearance. He allegedly did that to avoid getting asked questions about classified information.

Vice President Biden’s problem isn’t that a hard-nosed reporter will ask him about his dishonesty. It’s difficult to picture Biden’s campaign staff letting him get within a mile of a hard-nosed reporter. That’s if such a reporter exists outside of a handful of national security correspondents. Biden’s problem is that he’ll get pelted with this information by the Trump campaign in ads, by Trump-supporting PACs and by Trump himself during the presidential debates.

Biden can hide in his basement a little while longer but he’ll have to do real campaigning sooner rather than later. Last weekend, the MSM criticized the Trump campaign for only having 6,000 people in the arena. The story that they didn’t tell is that 7,700,000 people watched the rally on Fox and another 5,000,000 watched on C-SPAN. That’s before factoring in the people who watched the livestreaming via YouTube. Trump’s message is getting out and, as Charlie Hurt said this weekend, there’s nobody better at putting people on the defensive than President Trump.

Whenever a Democrat spins the Flynn plea bargain story, that Democrat omits an important (some might say essential) sentence. In this article, the Democrat wrote “In 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with making false statements to the FBI regarding his conversations with the Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions, among other things. Flynn promptly entered a guilty plea, and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s team in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

Actually, they’re missing multiple sentences. First, the Democrats omit the part that the DC Field Office wanted to shut down the Flynn investigation because they didn’t find any derogatory information on Gen. Flynn. See Jonathan Turley’s post on the subject. Turley wrote “It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR”, the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.”

This part is important to understanding the Democrats’ Flynn spin campaign:

The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

The Flynn case should’ve been dropped right there. Because of when this happened, that also means that there never should’ve been a special counsel investigation. Mueller’s special counsel investigation happened because a corrupt FBI agent named Peter Strzok intervened. While what he did isn’t illegal, it’s definitely swampy.

The other thing that Democrats omit is the part about how Mueller used that Strzok decision to push Gen. Flynn to the brink of bankruptcy before threatening to prosecute Gen. Flynn’s son and Gen. Flynn. I’d love hearing the ACLU explain how those Gestapo tactics are accepted by the Bill of Rights. I guess they’re accepted under the part that says that the ends justify the means.

Democrats have constantly omitted these details from their story. It’s disgraceful that they aren’t confident enough to win an argument on the merits. If Democrats have that weak of arguments, shouldn’t they find better arguments? That’s what smart people would do.

Anyone explaining how the unmasking of Gen. Flynn was routine isn’t trustworthy. To believe that the Flynn unmasking was innocent, I’d have to believe that the same people who spent $40,000,000 investigating the fake Trump-Russia collusion, appropriated 40 FBI agents and hired 19 corrupt attorneys just wanted better understanding of who was talking to the then-Russian ambassador to the US. That’s spin. This was a vendetta led by Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissman et al.

The cabal that didn’t hesitate in using the Steele Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page suddenly developed integrity? (Let’s remember that they didn’t get their warrant the first time when they filed their application without the discredited dossier.) I don’t think so. The definition of a cabal is “a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.” That definition fits Clapper, Comey, Mueller, Strzok and Weissman perfectly.

Again, to the Weissman/Strzok/Clapper/Comey cabal, this was a vendetta. They hated President-Elect Trump. Strzok told Lisa Page that he went to Walmart once and that he could smell the Trump supporters. Suddenly, this cabal of Trump haters are doing things purely out of civic pride? Shame on them for thinking that we’re that stupid.

We know the stories. Jim Clapper insisted in public that President Trump was a Russian asset but testified under oath that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Susan Rice testified to this:

Susan Rice, who served as Obama’s national security adviser, testified in September 2017 that she hadn’t seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion during questioning by former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

Rice certainly didn’t tell viewers that when being interviewed on TV. Why should we think that she’s a person of integrity? Peter Strzok found out that field officers wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor, the investigation into Gen. Flynn. Immediately, he ordered that Crossfire Razor not be stopped. A day later, there was a meeting in the Oval office about unmasking. Three weeks later, FBI agents entrapped Gen. Flynn.

Why shouldn’t people think that these different groups weren’t working together? They definitely had common purposes. They definitely weren’t people of integrity. They all hated the thought of a Trump administration. This interview is worth watching:

The FBI agent who foolishly asked on paper what the goal was is Bill Priestap. Here’s Priestap’s ‘contribution’ to the unmasking fiasco:

Priestap’s memo reflected his own thoughts on the FBI’S internal debate about interviewing Flynn. “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote, adding: “Protect our institution by not playing games.” His notes also show the FBI “softened its interview strategy” with Flynn, giving him hints to refresh his memory of his conversations, the Times reports. Nevertheless, Flynn “lied repeatedly, and prosecutors have said that agents gave him ‘multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions.'”

This isn’t going away anytime soon. That’s why it’s important to realize that the Democrats’ spin will intensify. The simple fix for the Democrats’ spin is to ask this simple question: Is it likely that the cabal that wanted to prevent a Trump administration, the cabal that impeached President Trump and tried to remove him from office, suddenly become public servants with integrity? Of course, they didn’t.

This article is proof that the Agenda Media isn’t interested in digging into stories to figure out what’s actually happening. The article essentially opens both barrels at President Trump without digging into the story it’s purportedly covering. Here’s what I’m talking about:

It turns out President Donald Trump’s status as the most accessible person to ever hold the office is more a curse than a blessing. Day after day, he fills the air with the ack-ack of disinformation and misdirection, needlessly alarming the public and sending reporters on wild goose chases to either confirm or disprove his allegations. On Thursday, in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Trump repeated his newest figment that Joe Biden and Barack Obama are guilty of some unnamed crimes for which they are deserving of “50-year sentences.”

Strong meat! The heinous crimes—to which he has applied the “Obamagate” moniker and calls “the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR”—is a relatively new creation of the Trump Disinformation Laboratory. He only started talking about it on May 10 and has yet to specify exactly what Obamagate is aside from telling reporters in a press conference that it’s “obvious” and that he wants Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to investigate it.

I know Mr. Schaefer isn’t that stupid. At least, I hope he isn’t. Obamagate refers to the fact that President Obama knew about the Obama administration’s FBI and Obama administration’s DOJ entrapped Michael Flynn in an attempt to get him to turn on then President-Elect Trump. What’s with this foolishness then?

Despite a lack of interest from his minions in Congress (Graham has said he has no plans to grill Obama), Trump’s foggy demagoguery has mobilized the entire press corps to determine what the hell Trump is talking about. Explainers from Reuters, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, and elsewhere struggle to decipher Trump’s vague but strident accusations with little success. We can say this much with certainty. It appears linked to the counterintelligence operation against Gen. Michael Flynn in late 2016, and the requests from Obama administration officials that his identity be “unmasked” from intelligence reports so they could understand who, exactly, was talking to the Russian ambassador. Flynn lied to the FBI about speaking to the ambassador about sanctions and later pled guilty to lying to the FBI about those conversations. (Unmasking, by the way, is a routine, not nefarious thing, which the Trump administration has requested thousands of times.) But until Trump uses his words to make his charges about Obama more specific, we can only guess at what the actual crime might be.

First, if Mr. Schaefer was the least bit interested in covering the story, he’d know that everyone from then-VP Biden to then-DNI Clapper to then-UN Ambassador Power to the then-Ambassador to Micronesia requested this unmasking. If Mr. Schaefer was a legitimate journalist, he’d ask why the US ambassador to Micronesia needed to know who was talking to Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Next, unmasking is routine for intelligence analysts. It isn’t routine for ambassadors, whether they’re the ambassador to the UN or to Micronesia.

The crime isn’t the unmasking. The crimes would likely come from illegally applying for FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page or from leaking classified information to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. Though the DOJ hasn’t identified the unmasker that leaked, it’s a safe bet that one of the unmaskers leaked that information to Ignatius. Let’s be clear about this. It isn’t a crime to receive leaked information. It’s a crime to leak classified information. This is a lie:

Now it could be that Obama did commit the biggest political crime in the history of the USA. If there’s a shred of evidence, I want Obama investigated. If the investigation bears fruit, I want him to have a fair trial. If he’s found guilty, I want him punished. But show me that shred of evidence first or I’m going back to bed.

Mr. Schaefer doesn’t want President Obama punished. It’s just that he’s obligated to say that. Further, Schaefer’s complaints about President Trump point to the fact that the MSM hates digging into the Democrats’ misconduct. Tara Reade is just the latest example of the MSM’s disinterest.

Marcie Bianco intended to lecture Americans throughout this op-ed. She tried lecturing us unsophisticated brutes from the Heartland when she wrote “liberty does not mean what you think it means.” Actually, Marcie, I think it’s you that doesn’t understand what liberty is.

In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the men who won our liberty wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

In Marcie’s words, “Liberty is a type of freedom defined and limited by civil society. It is not an unrestrained, unchecked license to do whatever one desires. Rather, liberty is a right constituted by the society — or, here, nation — one lives in.”

While it isn’t unreasonable to think that liberties are unlimited, it is unreasonable to think that liberty is defined only by society. While Bianco cites the Declaration of Independence, she wrote this:

And yet, as the quarantine protests make clear, a popular yet factually and legally inaccurate sentiment has infected the minds of many Americans. To paraphrase, it goes something like this: “This is America, and I am free to do whatever I want!”

That’s offensive. That isn’t what protesters have said. They’ve protested against tyrants like J.B. Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer, Democrats who insist that it’s logical to say that it’s ok to shop at Walmart but that it’s dangerous to shop at a neighborhood hardware store. On the bright side, at least Democrats are accepting Walmart a little.

The belief that personal freedom is more valuable than the common good factors heavily in right-wing logic. And it has, particularly in the 21st century, been the strategic linchpin of right-wing efforts to squash social and economic justice movements, particularly through race-baiting, xenophobic rhetoric. Such rhetoric, which we are seeing starting to creep into anti-quarantine protests, is designed to stoke the fear of oppression in white American society.

I’ve watched tons of these protests. I don’t know what the hell she’s talking about. The first couple of protests were held in cars. I’d love hearing Ms. Bianco explain when she heard “xenophobic rhetoric.” Better yet, I’d love finding out which protests she attended where she heard xenophobic rhetoric. It’s quite possible that she’s assuming things that she doesn’t have proof for. Where is the xenophobic rhetoric at Karl Manke’s reopening?

The day after Manke reopened, vindictive Democrat Michigan Gov. Gretchen ‘The Witch’ Whitmer revoked Karl Manke’s license. Marcie, I’d love hearing you explain how The Witch’s vindictive action is a good-faith attempt at restoring Karl Manke’s liberty. It’s time to write Ms. Bianco’s article off as the rantings of a spoiled progressive fascist.

John Solomon’s article goes a long ways towards explaining the difference between legitimate unmasking requests and illegitimate unmasking requests. By now, Washington, DC, is awash with the Democrats’ spin on why the Flynn unmasking wasn’t a big deal. It’s a new version of ‘no big deal, just keep moving.’ That isn’t the truth. This is a big deal.

For instance, Solomon explained that “If a Treasury official like Raskin or the U.N. ambassador requested the unmasking because they were trying to deal with a foreign official confused by U.S. policy during the transition, that likely would be deemed a lawful intelligence purpose. But if an official requested the information because they personally did not like the incoming Trump administration or wanted to thwart Flynn during the transition through leaking or other means, it could be deemed an act against a political adversary and a misuse of unmasking.”

According to this article, “The first request appears to have been made as part of a report on Nov. 30, 2016. Along with Biden, other Obama administration officials listed are Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.” That’s long before the Flynn-Kislyak call. The Flynn-Kislyak call happened in late December.

A final question for the investigators resides in the policy question about whether unmasking has become too easy to do and therefore infringes on Americans privacy, specifically the Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. On that front, there are already troubling revelations. Power, whose name was invoked for hundreds of unmasking requests, testified to Congress she did not make most of those requests attributed to her. That suggests some dangerous looseness in the unmasking system.

The political people who requested these unmaskings haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt. They each have a history of dishonesty.

It’s worth noting that Solomon said that Flynn isn’t the only member of the Trump team that the Obama administration unmasked. I suspect that there’s a closet of shoes left to drop on this. It might not be an Imelda Marcos-sized shoe closet but it’s still a shoe closet.

While some corrupt Democrats insist that the released Flynn documents aren’t a smoking gun, fair-minded Democrats say the opposite. Norman Eisen, the apologist for corrupt Democrats, wrote that “A review of these internal FBI communications, however, shows none of the wrongdoing that Mr. Trump would like to see. But no matter: The mischaracterization of these documents as evidence of FBI misconduct, and by extension, absolution of Mr. Flynn, signals that the president will escalate his abuses of power in the run-up to the 2020 election.” That’s quite a trick. A hand-written note from Bill Priestap asked “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The FBI should be in the business of investigating crimes, not manufacturing crimes that they hope to use to impeach and remove a president they don’t like.

Mr. Eisen, it’s sad that you don’t recognize corruption when you see it. Eisen wrote “The Michael Flynn scandal was one of the first to reveal the pattern of lawlessness that has characterized the Trump administration. In December 2016, Mr. Flynn, in a phone call, successfully implored Russia to moderate retaliation against the United States for sanctions imposed because of the attack on U.S. elections. The conduct raised serious questions under the Logan Act, which prohibits private parties from conducting U.S. foreign policy.”

Flynn wasn’t a private citizen at that point. He had already been named President-Elect Trump’s National Security Adviser. Calling foreign ambassadors is what NSAs do as part of their job. Mark Penn has a different opinion of what Priestap’s hand-written note represents:

The new documents are in effect the “smoking gun” proving that a cabal at the FBI acted above the law and with extreme political bias, targeting people for prosecution rather than investigating crimes.

Then Penn wrote this:

The principal evidence that prompted the FBI to open the overall investigation into Trump has been definitively determined to be the Steele dossier. We now know, based on recently disclosed footnotes in the Horowitz report, that the dossier was discredited by its own sources and may even have been deliberate Russian disinformation. After receiving this information, the FBI’s top brass, even after learning that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, opened a broad investigation into Trump and his campaign.

What was this “broad investigation” predicated on? The fact that the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation? Was the FBI attracted to it because its authors discredited the report? Former federal prosecutor Trey Gowdy was visibly upset when what the Priestap note represented:

I’ll take the thoughts of a former federal prosecutor over the words of a Democrat political operative anytime. Eisen is a Democrat political hack. Trey Gowdy is a former federal prosecutor who never lost a case in his career.

I’ve never seen the type of firestorm that’s happening with USAG William Barr. There’s little doubt that Protect Democracy is targeting AG Barr because he isn’t a go-along-to-get-along type. Unlike previous AGs, Barr is a heavyweight.

When Barr didn’t show up for the House Judiciary Committee’s clown show, Steve Cohen Left a bucket of KFC at the table where Barr would’ve sat had he testified. According to the report, “Barr balked at the opportunity to testify for a second day after spending more than five hours on Wednesday defending his summary of the report’s findings.”

The reason AG Barr frightens the Deep State is because he didn’t hesitate in overruling the Deep State prosecutors’ excessive sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. After that shot against the Deep State prosecutors, Barr sent a shot across President Trump’s bow, too. Before departing for California, President Trump admitted that he’d made Barr’s life more difficult with his tweets.

Next, Deep State Democrats tried getting AG Barr to quit by circulating this gossip:

The Justice Department pushed back Tuesday night at multiple reports claiming Attorney General William Barr told people close to him he’s considering stepping down over President Trump’s tweets, days after Barr admitted that Trump’s tweeting made it “‘impossible for me to do my job.”

AG Barr knows how to fight the bureaucrats who think that they run the DOJ. They don’t run the DOJ. AG Barr does. He let them know that with his sentencing recommendation in the Stone case.

With Washington, DC all aflutter, AG Barr continues doing what he’s paid to do while ignoring DC’s drama:

Speaking before the Senate Wednesday, Barr referred to the letter as “snitty” and suggested a Mueller staffer had written it. Democrats, including a swath of 2020 presidential contenders, have since called for Barr to resign.

Democrats don’t like this guy because he doesn’t play the DC game. Democrats typically can’t get things done legislatively so they rely heavily on the courts. With Democrat corruption running rampant, they can’t afford a strong USAG in place.

The Deep State is legitimately frightened now that John Durham is questioning the FISA warrant process. Democrats don’t want the truth to come out about that. There’s tons of signs out there that the Obama administration weaponized the Intel Community, then used that weaponized IC to surveil the Trump campaign. The last thing that the Deep State wants is a legitimate change agent who won’t settle for the status quo.

Last fall, the buzz was that impeachment was a way to prevent the Barr DOJ from shining a light on the DOJ/FBI corruption.

I expect President Trump’s State of the Union Address, aka SOTU, to focus mostly on his accomplishments. That part should take up an hour of his speech. Further, I expect him to highlight the results of his criminal justice reform. Last year, he highlighted Alice Johnson from the First Lady’s box:

This year, Alice was featured in this Super Bowl ad:

It’s inevitable that President Trump’s SOTU Address will include a lengthy conversation about how his economic policies are leading a blue collar boom. That will let him talk about blue collar workers’ rising wages. It’ll start with him touting the lowest unemployment rates amongst minorities and women. Consider that portion of the speech to be the meat-and-potatoes section of the speech. Consider the Alice Johnson-criminal justice reform part of the speech the heart-and-soul section of the speech.

An election year SOTU isn’t complete without the President laying out his vision for his second term. That portion of the speech will talk about infrastructure, finishing the wall, cleaning up the antiquated immigration laws and additional middle class tax cuts, including making these tax cuts permanent.

I hope President Trump spends some time criticizing House Democrats for their hyperpartisan impeachment inquiry. I hope he scolds House Democrats for impeaching him for exercising his constitutional right to executive privilege. I hope he scolds them for not giving him the right to call witnesses during the House impeachment hearings. I hope he finishes that section by lecturing House Democrats for spending 3+ years on impeaching him rather than working with him on the people’s business.

Finally, I hope he finishes the SOTU by talking directly to the American people, essentially saying ‘You sent me here to drain the swamp, fix the economy, build the wall and make America great again. We’ve accomplished a lot but we’ve still got work to do. To finish that task, I need a congress that will work with me, not a congress that will fight me and investigate me.’

That won’t sit well with the nattering nabobs of negativism found throughout the Swamp. That’s ok. The Swamp isn’t his constituency. The American people are his constituents. That’s who this SOTU Address should address.

When Republicans complained that anti-Trump lawyer David Kris had gotten appointed to oversee the FISA reforms, people predictably questioned whether Republicans were playing politics with the appointment. That hasn’t disappeared yet but it should now that independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has written this article on the subject.

In her article, Ms. Attkisson highlights the main problems associated with this appointment, starting with this:

On Twitter, Kris called Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead,” and wrote that Trump and his advisers should be “worried” that the “walls are closing in” regarding the Mueller probe. Kris also bought into the now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia and Putin.

In other words, the FISC appointed a political hack at a time when the FISC needed a nonpartisan person to supervise these FISA reforms. Then there’s this:

To some, the appointment of Kris to help with the job is as mysterious as to why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own. It would seem more important than ever to have an apolitical person, or a balanced group of people, conducting oversight of these politically sensitive matters.

Why didn’t the FISC police these warrant applications? It wasn’t until after the Horowitz Report had been published that the judge put out a warning. That isn’t policing the process. That’s CYA after the fact.

There’s no question that we need something that hunts the bad guys but that also keeps Big Brother playing fair. If anything is certain, it’s that FISA won’t get renewed without major changes. If Christopher Wray doesn’t step forward with a lengthy list of reforms, then FISA should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Things get more questionable with this tweet from whistle-blower attorney Mark Zaid:


The op-ed written by Mike Morrell and David Kris says “This summer, a whistleblower complained to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community of an alleged ‘violation’ of law, ‘abuse’ of authority or similar problem. The inspector general, in turn, advised the acting DNI, and later the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint was both credible and ‘urgent,’ meaning it involved something ‘serious or flagrant’ or otherwise significant.”

Why didn’t Kris and Morrell highlight the fact that the faux whistle-blower isn’t covered by the ICWPA? For that matter, why didn’t Kris mention that the person who tweeted about the op-ed is the faux whistle-blower’s attorney? Additionally, Mr. Zaid is the partisan Democrat who tweeted that “the coup” had started about 10 days after President Trump had been inaugurated?

Anyone associated with Mr. Zaid shouldn’t be associated with FISA reform. Period.