Archive for the ‘Devin Nunes’ Category

It isn’t surprising that the Antifa-BLM wing of the Democratic Party attacked Trump supporters in DC yesterday. This is who the Democrats have become. The Democrats of 25 years ago are long gone. They’re ridiculed as Republican Lite. Barack Obama’s Democrats have taken over and they don’t like listening to people who don’t agree with them 100%.

According to The Epoch Times report, “Supporters and likely members of the far-left Antifa network and the Black Lives Matter movement were captured on video assaulting President Donald Trump supporters in Washington on Saturday. Thousands of Trump supporters turned out for a large march to protest against alleged election fraud. Some pro-Trump marchers also engaged in violence.”

Trump supporters engaging in violence likely were defending themselves. It’s way out of character for Republicans to go looking for trouble. Antifa-BLM, though, thrives off this stuff. This is how the typical Trump supporter behaves:

The myth that Trump supporters are just a bunch of disgruntled white men is outdated. President Trump’s GOP is entirely different than the Establishment’s GOP. That GOP had lots of disgruntled white men in it.

Once Trump became president and started implementing his economic and national security policies, this nation started winning. Meanwhile, Democrat and Never Trumpers became angrier because Trump’s America was successful, prosperous and safe. The Democrats’ corruption was exposed daily during the Mueller investigation. Adam Schiff still has a tattoo on his forehead that reads ‘Owned by President Trump and Devin Nunes’.

In at least several cases, people affiliated with Antifa or Black Lives Matter were the ones carrying out the assaults. Trump supporters walking in downtown were assaulted by pro-Black Lives Matter supporters, the Daily Caller’s Jorge Ventura reported. One man was sucker-punched by a black male from behind who was holding a sign that said “Trump/Pence Out Now!” video footage showed. The slogan was promoted by Refuse Facism, a radical left-wing group that, according to the non-profit Influence Watch, is an offshoot of the Radical Communist Party and has been present at many Antifa events.

Today’s Democrats are nothing but a collection of misfits, Marxistss, socialists, anarchists and coastal elites. Every few years, they recruit some somewhat sane candidates, recapture the House, then get thrown out 2-4 years later.

This upcoming term will be the last one for Democrats for at least a decade.

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.

Apparently, Adam Schiff is in panic mode now that transcripts of the House Intel Committee are about to be released. What’s supposedly getting under Schiff’s skin is that he’s about to be exposed:

Another source familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that the people interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe were asked whether they had evidence that Trump, himself, or the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.

Two sources familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that not one of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion. “The transcripts show a total lack of evidence, despite Schiff personally going out saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion,” one source involved in House Russia investigations told Fox News.

Mueller, similarly, at the conclusion of his nearly two-year-long investigation, said he and his team found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, which current Attorney General Bill Barr ultimately decided not to pursue.

Then there’s this:

While law enforcement officials have long maintained that there was clear intelligence Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, to date, there have been no charges concerning actual conspiracy against people associated with the Trump campaign, which was at the core of the Russia investigation.

There isn’t any dispute that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The question was whether people from the Trump campaign assisted in that meddling. It isn’t that Mueller couldn’t find enough evidence to recommend impeachment of President Trump. It’s that the official Mueller Report didn’t find any evidence that anyone in the United States worked with the Russians.

This should make Schiff nervous:

This won’t help Schiff’s credibility, either:

“According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft,” Schiff declared at a March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing.

“Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company,” the California Democrat added.

Later, Schiff added this:

For instance, Schiff claimed this about the Steele dossier in a Nov. 15, 2017 interview with The Wall Street Journal: “The bigger factor is how much of it can you corroborate and how much of it is true. A lot of it has turned out to be true.”

Adam Schiff is a guttersnipe and a Democrat partisan hack. If Nancy Pelosi cared about integrity, which she doesn’t, she should’ve thrown Schiff out of the House.

Most people outside the DC Beltway know who Brandon Van Grack is. Before this morning, I didn’t know who he was. That’s certainly changing rapidly. After reading this article, I suspect that’s going to change.

First, Van Grack was part of Robert Mueller’s team of partisan attorneys. Next, it’s important to know that since “February 2018, Van Grack has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession ‘that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.'”

Third and most importantly, Van Grack might have some explaining to do:

In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.”

That might be difficult to prove in light of this information:

What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about, and didn’t provide to Flynn, was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.”

It’s difficult to picture anything more exculpatory than an FBI document that says an “exhaustive search” through the FBI’s databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” Nothing says ‘he isn’t guilty’ than a document that says there’s no predication for “further investigative efforts.” That’s like a bright flashing neon light saying ‘He isn’t guilty. Stop wasting our time.”

Remember that Operation Crossfire Razor, the surveillance operation into Gen. Flynn, remained open only because Peter Strzok overruled field officers who wanted to shut down Operation Razor. Then there’s this:

He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.”

But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties or coordination with Russia. Shedding light on internal FBI deliberations, notes from the then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, written before the Flynn interview and after discussions with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told, show discussions of whether their “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

Devin Nunes has taken hit after hit from partisan hacks like Adam Schiff for years. Schiff even published a memo that said virtually everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. The Horowitz utterly discredited Schiff’s memo.

Now the question is whether the Senate will interrogate Brandon Van Grack. If they believe in justice and equal justice under the law. Unfortunately, that’s still debatable at this point.

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.

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.

The House Democrats’ credibility crisis is reaching epic proportions. Multiple DNC propagandist organizations, otherwise known as news organizations in a bygone era, are reporting that Russia is interfering in our elections with the intent on helping President Trump’s re-election campaign and “to raise questions about the integrity of the elections process, the source added.” Devin Nunes shot holes in that theory tonight, saying that “we can’t talk about what happened in that meeting so if anything in that Washington Post story or the NYTimes story is true about either Bernie Sanders or Putin’s plans and intentions or anything else, nobody that’s in the committee or has seen this classified information should be talking about it. Now, it gets worse. When you have the Washington Post claim that I went to the White House to tell the President really bad things to get him to fire Maguire. Now, look, I don’t know which planet the Washington Post is on but they’ll have an opportunity in federal court in the next couple weeks to explain who their sources are because I’m gonna have to take them to court because I didn’t go to the White House. I didn’t talk to President Trump so this is the same garbage and the only way to get these guys to stop…”

This didn’t get leaked by the White House. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka the HPSCI, is chaired by Adam Schiff, the most notorious liar and leaker in Congress. Friday, Schiff tweeted this:


First, there’s no doubt that Russia is attempting to interfere with elections. Next, Schiff has problems because CBS’s Catherine Herridge tweeted this:


Allegations aren’t proof. Opinions and theories aren’t proof, either. Schiff’s tweet isn’t a lie because he said “if reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is against jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.” At that point, Schiff is just hypothesizing. He closes, though, with a firm-sounding conclusion, saying “Exactly as we warned he would do.”

The fact that the briefers didn’t have phone intercepts or SIGINT to back up these claims is a major red flag. Schiff likely leaked this briefing. Shame on him for that but that won’t stop him from leaking again. He’s pathological. The list of his lies is lengthy and well-known. I don’t need to repeat them here.

The Democrats’ national security leadership team (Speaker Pelosi, Conference Chairman Jefferies, Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff) aren’t people of integrity. If you’re looking for integrity from the Washington Post, CNN and the NYTimes, you haven’t paid attention lately.

When it’s time for this election’s closing arguments, the Democrats’ integrity/credibility crisis will come front and center. That’s when things will get ugly fast.

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.