Archive for the ‘Deep State’ Category

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.

It isn’t surprising that the Intelligence Community, aka the IC, is already attacking newly confirmed DNI John Ratcliffe. Equally unsurprising is the fact that the MSM is attacking Ratcliffe. They know that Ratcliffe wants to drain the IC swamp, that he wants to get rid of people who think of Peter Strzok, Jim Comey and Jim Clapper as heroes.

CNN started its attack by saying “Ratcliffe will transition from being one of the President’s key defenders to leading an intelligence community that has been under constant fire from Trump, who has pushed unsubstantiated claims about a ‘deep state’ of career officials trying to undermine his presidency.” CNN pretends that the transcripts from the HPSCI, aka House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, interviews haven’t come out. Those 63,000 pages of transcripts show that Jim Clapper said on TV that President Trump might be a Russian asset but then changed his story, saying under oath that he hadn’t “seen any direct evidence” of collusion or conspiracy between Trump and the Russians.

Peter Strzok kept open Operation Crossfire Razor on Gen. Flynn even though the DC Field Office wanted it closed because, in the field office’s opinion, Gen. Flynn had told the truth. Strzok said that the “7th floor”, aka FBI Director Jim Comey, wanted the investigation kept open. Does that sound like the FBI political appointees were people of integrity? It doesn’t sound like that to me.

Susan Rice and Samantha Power also requested the unmasking of Gen. Flynn’s name, too. What CNN calls unsubstantiated is actually substantiated. It’s just that CNN is filled with liars who shill for Democrats. Eli Lake wouldn’t fit with CNN. Lake isn’t a lying progressive like the meatheads at CNN. He wrote something entirely different in this article:

Flynn did not then know that leaders of the FBI and the Justice Department were out for his head. They suspected he was a Russian agent—despite the fact that a counterintelligence investigation into Flynn launched five months earlier by the FBI had found no evidence for such a claim. Three weeks into the Trump administration, the Flynn hunt bagged its trophy. The newly installed national-security adviser was compelled to quit. The stated rationale was that Flynn had lost the confidence of the new vice president because he had supposedly misled Mike Pence about some phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States. That those phone calls became public knowledge was almost certainly the result of Obama-administration leaks of highly sensitive intelligence information.

Lake isn’t a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He just isn’t a CNN-style commentator because he, unlike many of their commentators, isn’t a liar. Instead, he’s just a reporter that takes his responsibilities seriously. Then there’s this from CNN:

Ratcliffe has been unequivocal that he believes Russia has interfered in US elections and will continue to do so — but he has not sided with one of the intelligence community’s key findings: that Russia was trying to help Trump in 2016.

There’s a reason for Ratcliffe’s hesitation in siding with the IC’s finding. While there is documentation from the IC thought that Russia was trying to help then-Candidate Trump in 2016, it’s also true that Jim Clapper didn’t turnover the documents that showed Russia preferred Hillary. That documentation said Russia knew her and thought that she was “malleable.” When intelligence says contradicting things, it’s best that the IC not take a conclusive position. This is telling, too:

“I haven’t served in an intelligence agency. I think that bringing a different kind of experience today is really going to be vitally important,” Ratcliffe told Catherine Herridge of CBS News after he was nominated in March.

“You know all of the experience in the world isn’t helpful without judgment, and I think what we’ve seen is that some of our most experienced intelligence officials have gotten it wrong with respect to important issues,” Ratcliffe said.

It’s better to pick someone talented and honest than picking someone experienced and dishonest.

Last week, Marie Harf, whom I’ve nicknamed ‘Baghdad Barbara’ because she’s as trustworthy as Baghdad Bob, tried peddling some Democrat spin while appearing on Outnumbered. Saying that Lara Logan demolished Harf and the Democrats’ talking points is understatement. Harf didn’t wave her little white flag but that’s mostly because isn’t a person of integrity.

Harf started by saying “Yesterday, Barr basically made a statement that said, ‘You can lie to the FBI, and that’s okay.’ And there is still a ton of evidence that the investigation was absolutely an appropriate one, that Flynn was absolutely someone who should have been investigated, and he comes at the end of the day, chose to lie about his contact with foreign countries. If Bill Barr wants to say that’s not a crime, that is a precedent I’m not sure either party wants to set.”

Actually, the law says that it isn’t automatically a crime to lie to law enforcement. For it to be a crime, the lie has to be material to an investigation that’s properly predicated. Thanks to the transcripts that Ric Grenell forced Adam Schiff to release, we now know that the Flynn investigation wasn’t properly predicated. That means that the investigation was bogus, which meant that Gen. Flynn’s statements weren’t material to a legitimate investigation. Here’s how Logan replied to Ms. Harf:

Oh my God. Wow. I feel like I’m in some kind of fantasy sci-fi alternative reality movie. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not sure there’s a word that came out of your mouth that’s actually true.

Look at the transcripts of the conversations. There’s a big difference between talking to people and colluding. If that’s a standard for collusion, how come you not screaming for accountability for Fusion GPS and the DNC and the Clinton campaign for literally meeting with agents from Vladimir Putin, for taking disinformation and using that against a political rival in the presidential election in this country.

I mean, the message was not — the message was exactly the opposite to millions of people in this country. Now that you can just lie to the FBI and get away with it. The message was that accountability, that so many people in this country have been asking for, for so long, it’s finally actually going to happen.

Bill Barr has never said that his mission is about defending president trump. He said it in the CBS interview and he said it from the beginning, that his duty is to protect the rule of law in this country. To protect the Justice Department and law enforcement. He’s doing that holding them to the standard to which they have sworn to uphold. And holding them to the same standard that every single person in this country would be held to if they were facing similar charges. So, what about lying to Congress? Because all of these people, McCabe and Comey, and all of them, they have all lied and lied and lied. And there is more information to come, hear, that is going to show exactly what really happened with Michael Flynn.

The FBI’s actions in the Flynn interview were reprehensible. According to this tweet, the Flynn investigation was crumbling:


In other words, the people who violated Gen. Flynn’s civil rights (“FBI leadership”) didn’t want to stop harassing Gen. Flynn. To steal a line from Ms. Harf, “I’m not sure” that’s a good look for Democrats to adopt.

Finally, Bill Barr determined that there wasn’t proper predication for the Flynn investigation. That’s why he later determined dropping the case against Gen. Flynn was the right decision. That’s why Judge Sullivan is trying his best to keep the case alive.

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.

In his analysis article for NBC, retired FBI special agent, Frank Figliuzzi wrote “Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the FBI transitioned from an investigative agency adept at investigating what happened after the fact to an intelligence agency capable of forecasting and preventing harm from happening in the future. Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues. And when it comes to assessing the trap Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump appear to be setting for us, the warning signs are plentiful. We don’t need to read tea leaves for this. We only need to review tweets.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi wrote that “Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues.” Later, Figliuzzi wrote “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly. He therefore has a special interest in undermining accusations of Russian meddling, something he has done since entering the Oval Office. What better way to do this than to flip the script? He didn’t have an advantage; in fact, he was the victim.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi is reading tea leaves that don’t exist. What is Figliuzzi basing his opinion on that “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly?” In transcript after transcript released last Thursday, the Obama administration’s best tea leave readers testified under oath that they couldn’t even find a hint of gossip that then-Candidate Trump or anyone associated with his campaign conspired with Russians. While testifying under oath, Jim Clapper said “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Isn’t that interesting? This is more interesting:

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said there was no smoking gun. “To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

Just where are these tea leaves, Mr. Figliuzzi? President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence and National Security Adviser testified under oath that they didn’t see anything that came close to being considered evidence of Russian collusion/conspiracy. We know that they searched hard for that proof. We’ve verified that they really wanted it to be true.

If President Obama’s top clue sniffers couldn’t find those clues, perhaps it’s a good thing that Mr. Figliuzzi retired rather than misread other nonexistent tea leaves. Check out this interview with Brian Williams:

What’s astonishing is that Figliuzzi totally ignored the aforementioned transcripts. The statements speak for themselves, Mr. Figliuzzi. Res ipsa loquitur. Translated, that Latin sentence literally means “the facts speak for themselves.” That likely means that Mr. Figliuzzi either is a disgruntled ex-FBI employee who got passed over for a job or he’s another Deep State agent sent out to mislead the public. The other possibility is that he’s a Deep Stater because he got passed over for a job. This is rich:


President Trump is constantly accused of being a dictator by Democrats. They’ll never learn. In this interview, Pelosi accused President Trump of wasting time, which led to people dying:

Dictators are known for taking their time and letting the chips fall where they may. NOT. Whether it’s Figliuzzi or Pelosi, Democrats can’t quite figure out if he’s a dictator, a traitor or someone who’s just a lot smarter than they are. I’ll go with C.

The keys to this election, at least in terms of themes, will be trust and performance over the past 2 years. That’s the headwind working against the Democrats this year, both here in Minnesota and nationwide. Let’s start with what’s happening in Minnesota.

Gov. Walz has grudgingly started reopening Minnesota’s economy. That’s happening only because of multiple protests and the threat from some business owners who simply started threatening to open with or without Gov. Walz’s permission. Even then, Gov. Walz has been pathetically slow. LFR was told that protecting the most vulnerable in LTC facilities were a high priority for this administration. Despite that prioritization, 81% of Minnesota’s COVID deaths have happened in LTC facilities.

In terms of Minnesota’s economy, it’s in the crapper. Rep. Anne Neu debated House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler on Friday night’s Almanac. It didn’t turn out well for Winkler:

When Cathy Wurzer asked about the possibility of laying off or furloughing state workers, things got interesting fast.

WINKLER: I think that should be one of the last resorts that we should consider. State workers are providing essential services throughout Minnesota, from people who are processing unemployment insurance checks to epidemiologists at the Department of Health to correction officers engaged at the Department of Corrections to making sure that that doesn’t become a hotspot. We have people working to protect the meatpacking industry. We have people working to make sure our state parks are able to operate. … I also think that layoffs or wage cuts doesn’t help the economy, doesn’t help any of us if some people are making less money and so that’s why I hope that’s one of the last things we would look at.
REP. NEU: Well, I certainly think that salary freezes are appropriate. … The reality is that we’re looking at a significant deficit. We’re at $2.4 billion right now. There’s a good chance that will go up by the November forecast. And frankly, we have asked our private sector businesses, our mom and pop shops, are devastated right now and it really is not fair to those businesses to take the hits that they have taken and then to say that, no, as a government, we are going to fund everything at the levels that we always have.

We shouldn’t trust the DFL, aka the party of big government. Walz’s campaign slogan was One Minnesota. The policy that Winkler defended sounded like one of the private sector getting tossed table scraps after the government has feasted and had seconds. That isn’t my definition of One Minnesota.

Nationally, Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer keep tightening the screws on Blue Collar Americans with arbitrary (and unilateral) executive orders. It’s apparent that Democrat governors don’t want to return to sharing power with GOP legislatures. They’d rather act unilaterally rather than work with Republicans.

Why trust Democrats who want to act unilaterally and without the consent of the governed? This isn’t a third-world dictatorship. This is the nation whose Declaration of Independence emphatically states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Democrats have dragged their feet in terms of reopening the economy and restoring our God-given rights. Democrats have jailed patriots like Shelley Luther:

Democrats even tried jailing a 3-star general because Donald Trump had the audacity to win the 2016 presidential election. Listen to the condescension of this pundit:

He’s perplexed after reading the deposition transcripts? When Jim Clapper said that he hadn’t seen “any direct empirical evidence” of conspiracy between Russia and Trump or anyone in Trump’s campaign, does this idiot still think that there was justification for prosecuting Gen. Flynn? If he thinks that, the next question is why he’s that stupid.

None of this engenders trust for Democrats. Finally, if Biden is elected, why think that he wouldn’t return Clapper, Comey, Mueller, et al, to his national security team? Why trust any of these people in positions of power after what they’ve done?

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.

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times. Yeah, that politician is crooked but they’re all crooks. That’s disheartening. What’s worst is that it’s a defeatist attitude. I’m planting a stake in the ground and saying ‘No more!’ If our president is willing to fight against the Swamp, and he’s definitely willing, then it’s time for people of integrity from all political persuasions to join him in saying No More!

There’s nothing more Swamp-like than the upper echelon (singular, not plural) of the FBI. Republicans Jim Jordan and Michael Johnson have put FBI Director Christopher Wray on notice that they intend to interview “a mysterious FBI agent, Joe Pientka” in connection with the perjury trap crafted against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Expect Democrats to attack Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson for impugning the reputation of the FBI. Spare me the dramatics.

Democrats, starting with Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), have launched one defense of the FBI after another. The infamous Schiff Memo was demolished by the Horowitz Report. The Schiff Memo said that “FBI and DOJ officials did not ‘abuse’ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.”

The Horowitz Report determined the exact opposite. In fact, the Horowitz Report went further than that:

The Justice Department inspector general’s report contradicted Schiff’s defense. It listed 17 significant omissions and errors that the FBI made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants, including derogatory information about Steele and at least one of his sources.

Then there’s this:

The key claim in the Nunes memo, that the Steele dossier “formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application”, is backed up by the inspector general’s report. The inspector general also faulted the FBI for failing to tell the surveillance court that Steele told a Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, that he was “desperate” in September 2016 to see Donald Trump lose the election.

Don’t expect Mssrs. Jordan and Johnson to relent. Here’s why:

Pientka was conspicuously removed from the FBI’s website after Fox News contacted the FBI about his extensive role in Crossfire Hurricane Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) matters, a change first noticed by Twitter user Techno Fog, but sources say Pientka remains in a senior role at the agency’s San Francisco field office.

This is what the Democrats’ pushback will look like:

The Horowitz Report utterly demolished the Schiff Memo. I’ve listed some of the specifics. The fact is that Pientka, Wray, Comey, McCabe and Strzok all need to testify. Further, it’s worth noting that field agents wanted to close Crossfire Razor, the name for the operation against Gen. Flynn. Strzok ordered it to stay open.

Here’s a question that hasn’t been posed to Strzok, Comey or Wray: why would field officers who interviewed Gen. Flynn want to shut the operation down but a suit from the 7th Floor overrule the field officers? The Swamp must be drained. The Swamp’s defenders must be defeated ASAP. Keeping gavels in Pelosi’s and Schiff’s hands is protecting the Comey/Strzok/Wray of the FBI Building. That isn’t acceptable.

It isn’t overstatement to say that Adam Schiff is the most prolific leaker in Congress. Just when you thought he couldn’t stoop to lower lows, Schiff proves that theory wrong. This time, Chairman Schiff criticized Acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell for rearranging the ODNI without the Intel Committees’ permission.

Specifically, Chairman Schiff said “Grenell was ‘pursuing organizational and personnel changes’ in ODNI ‘without consulting and seeking authorization from Congress and in a manner that undermines critical intelligence functions.'” It’s awful that Schiff would say that. It’s worse, though, that he’d leak the letter before sending it to its official recipient.

Before moving on though, it’s important to tell Schiff that Ambassador Grenell has the authority he needs to make changes because President Trump named him as the Acting DNI. He doesn’t need Schiff’s permission because he doesn’t take orders from Schiff.

Grenell shot back with his reply:


Schiff is a partisan hatchetman. He should be stripped of his security clearance forthwith. Further, he shouldn’t be part of any oversight committee from this point forward. Thankfully, President Trump is draining the Swamp:

Good riddance.

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.