Archive for the ‘Sarah Carter’ Category

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.

John Solomon has worked overtime and then some to rip Adam Schiff’s mask off. So have Catherine Herridge, Sara Carter, Lee Smith, Gregg Jarrett, Kim Strassel, Mollie Hemmingway and Byron York. Solomon’s article highlights how utterly dishonest Adam Schiff is. Ditto with the upper echelon of the FBI. Strap yourself in. This isn’t a short ride.

The pursuit of the truth ended Thursday when the Justice Department formally asked a court to vacate Flynn’s conviction and end the criminal case, acknowledging the former general had indeed been cleared by FBI agents and that the bureau did not have a lawful purpose when it interviewed him in January 2017.

Attorney General William Barr put it more bluntly in an interview Thursday: “They kept it open for the express purpose of trying to catch, to lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.”

According to Solomon’s reporting, the FBI didn’t have a reason to investigate Gen. Flynn:

3. Case closed memo. FBI agents wrote a memo to close the investigation of Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, writing they found “no derogatory” evidence that Flynn committed a crime or posed a national security threat. FBI management then ordered the closure to be rescinded and pivoted toward trying lure Flynn into an interview. https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/fbi-found-no-derogatory-russia-evidence-flynn-planned

Corrupt FBI agent Peter Strzok allegedly ordered Crossfire Razor, the codename for the Flynn investigation, to stay open. Later, in a text to his lover, said this:

“Our utter incompetence actually helps us.”

It’s fair to ask how this relate to Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff knew that the FBI line office wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor. Most importantly, he knew that the officers had found “no derogatory” evidence against Flynn. They found that out before President Trump’s inauguration. That meant that there wasn’t a legitimate predicate for the Flynn investigation. Solomon laid out his case in this interview:

Schiff is a sociopath. Solomon cites 10 different statements Schiff made in public that were contradicted by what was known by the intelligence community. This is disgusting:

Unequal treatment. James Comey bragged in a videotaped interview that he authorized the FBI to try to conduct a Flynn interview without the proper notifications and protocol, hoping to catch Flynn and the new Trump White House off guard. In other words, they didn’t follow procedure or treat Flynn like others when it came to due process. Comey said the tactic was “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/comey-admits-decision-to-send-fbi-agents-to-interview-mike-flynn-was-not-standard

Comey and Schiff are the most reprehensible figures in this disgusting episode. They’re both narcissists and sociopaths.

The Democrats have 2 major difficulties staring right at them. The first difficulty is their unwillingness to fight for the witnesses that they now insist are essential to a fair trial. Why didn’t Mssrs. Schiff and Nadler file a lawsuit to compel John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney to testify?

Please don’t tell us that it would’ve taken too much time. That excuse is forever discredited thanks to Emperor Pelosi withholding the Articles of Impeachment for a month. Most likely, they didn’t file that lawsuit because they knew that the court would rule against them. The court likely would’ve ruled that both people were covered by executive privilege.

The other difficulty Democrats have is explaining why they haven’t released all of the depositions from the Impeachment Committee hearings. The only deposition that hasn’t been released is Michael Atkinson’s testimony. Atkinson is the ICIG. He’s the guy that gave us the whistleblower. He’s also under investigation, according to Devin Nunes.

The Democrats’ other crisis is their unwillingness to let any Republican-called witnesses testify. What exculpatory evidence was hidden as a direct result of that decision? In the House Judiciary Committee mark-up hearing, Chairman Nadler refused to provide for a minority witness hearing, as required by House rules. When asked why he didn’t let Republicans call witnesses, Chairman Nadler said that they weren’t relevant.

One of the witnesses that Republicans wanted to call is the faux whistle-blower. Democrats insist he must remain anonymous. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says he can’t. The Constitution wins those fights.

What are Democrats hiding? Are Democrats trying to hide exculpatory evidence? They haven’t released the transcript of their behind-closed-doors deposition of ICIG Michael Atkinson. According to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes, Atkinson “is under active investigation.”

(Atkinson) is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging, Rep. Nunes said.

According to Sara Carter’s reporting, “Republican lawmakers asked Atkinson to explain who revised the complaint and for what reason.”

“And nobody in the media is calling for it,” [Ranking Member Nunes] told The Sara Carter Show. “You’d think they would be, but you know I’ve talked about it on television, John Ratcliffe’s talked about it on television. There’s very few of us that actually know what’s in the transcript, but, yeah, it’s a major problem.”

Atkinson is certainly relevant to this impeachment trial because he’s the person who helped the whistle-blower file his complaint. What are Democrats hiding in Atkinson’s deposition transcript? It must be something important. Inspectors general don’t get investigated over trivial things.

John Ratcliffe articulated the argument beautifully in this interview:

When it comes to Democrats displaying illogic, Ilhan Omar is pretty impressive. Last week, former Miss Iraq Sarah Idan criticized Rep. Omar. Appearing on Sara Carter’s program, Miss Idan said that Omar “does not represent me as a Muslim, does not represent millions of Muslims Middle East.”

Rep. Omar replied, saying “Hey, I might be wrong but I don’t think you are a #MN05 resident and like that makes me not your representative.” That illogic is frightening. Miss Idan didn’t talk about Rep. Omar representing her in Congress. Still, the back-and-forth wasn’t over:


Sara Carter jumped to Miss Idan’s defense:


Democrats, the supposed political party favored by women, didn’t lift a finger to defend a clearly westernized Muslim. Sara Carter, an ace investigative reporter who has broken tons of story investigating the investigators for FNC, jumped to Miss Idan’s defense. This isn’t surprising. It’s just disappointing that Democrats, who used to be huge defenders of civil liberties, wouldn’t defend a woman’s civil liberties.

The major over-arching issue is that Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party is dead. Honestly, since Barack Obama left the White House 3 years ago, his Democratic Party is already on hospice. Today’s Democratic Party is filled with socialists and anarchists.

John Solomon’s reporting in this article should worry Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutor.

According to Solomon’s article, “an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit” that “[t]he April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort’s company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the ‘black ledger.'” Then Solomon wrote “There are two glaring problems with that assertion. First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.”

Then there’s this:

Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.

It gets worse:

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence,” he said. “It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” he added.

The operational premise likely is that the FBI should have firsthand information because of its investigation. The other premise is that ‘news’ articles aren’t exactly reliable these days. News articles, furthermore, should be considered hearsay. That’s the most important reason why judges shouldn’t trust news articles. The other important reason not to trust news articles is because, lately, political operatives have weaponized information in a way to sabotage their opponent’s campaign.

Why wouldn’t Weissmann worry about the inaccuracy of this information? Is it because he’s that unethical? Is it because he’s that much of a partisan hack? Is it because he isn’t as worried about accuracy as he is about convictions whatever the cost? Is it all of the above? I’m betting it’s the last one.

John Solomon and Sarah Carter are the Woodward and Bernstein of 2019. They aren’t alone, though. It’d be improper to not recognize the work of Devin Nunes and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. In this video, Mr. Fitton goes into detail on the multiple dossiers in play:

If Weissmann isn’t worried, he’s stupid. The Judicial Watch video is fascinating because it highlights the connections between Steele and the State Department and/or Obama administration officials. That sounds pretty shady. I don’t know if it’s illegal but it’s worth looking into.

What I know is that the US attorney that’s assigned to “investigate the investigators” isn’t a prosecutor to be trifled with. John Durham took over a 30-year-old cold case and turned it into a conviction. If laws were broken, Mr. Durham will get a conviction. With all of the documents admitting what various people were doing, I can’t imagine Durham not getting to the bottom of these cases.