Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

Saying that Pennsylvania’s voting irregularities are troubling is understatement. This article does more than cast doubt on what happened in Pennsylvania, especially Philadelphia. Inside the article, it says “Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 2 percent in Erie in 2016. He received 57,168 votes. In 2020, he’s losing to Biden in Erie by 1.0 percent. The Democrats (Hillary) got 54,820 votes in Erie County in 2016. In 2020, the Democrats (Biden) got 68,336 votes in Erie. Look at that increase for Democrats from 2016 to 2020: almost 30 percent. That’s staggering for a county adorned with Trump signs.”

It continues, saying “‘I was at the Trump rally in Erie,’ observes Emily, a college student. ‘There literally were not enough busses to transport everyone there.’ She asks with a bewildered look: ‘Where did all of those Biden votes come from?'” This doesn’t make sense from a historical standpoint. In 2016, 96.6% of people who attended Trump rallies voted for Trump. This year, President Trump had the most robust GOTV in history. Further, the Democrats’ ground game didn’t exist. Yet I’m supposed to think that Joe Biden performed significantly better than Hillary without campaigning and without a GOTV operation? I don’t think that’s what happened.

The article notes that Erie County was “adorned with Trump signs.” It’s difficult to envision shy Biden voters, especially considering the fact that Republicans don’t dox people, nor do they torment people who vote for Democrats. Look at this sea of humanity:

This might explain the extra Biden votes:

Of course, Erie right now is the subject of a major case of alleged fraud with mail-in ballots. The county is receiving national attention because of a sworn affidavit by postal worker Richard Hopkins, who said that Postmaster Rob Weisenbach directed him and co-workers to hand over ballots received after Election Day, which he then back-dated. “Weisenbach was back-dating the postmarks on the ballots to make it appear as though the ballots had been collected on November 3, 2020 despite them in fact being collected on November 4 and possibly later,” said Hopkins.

If it’s found as fact that Weisenbach fraudulently back-dated these ballots, then everything in Pennsylvania changes dramatically. The USPS is definitely trying to change this narrative. The Biden campaign surely is hoping that this post-mark affidavit disappears.

This Bloomberg article initially made me laugh. Then I realized that they’re serious. The article opens by saying “Joe Biden won the presidency promising to bring Americans together. But now his administration is sure to come under pressure from some Democrats to risk exacerbating divisions by investigating and prosecuting Donald Trump.”

Later in the article, it mentions “Prosecutors could revive the investigation into campaign-finance violations that resulted in a three-year sentence for Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen and re-examine the instances of possible obstruction of justice that former Special Counsel Robert Mueller uncovered in his probe into Russia’s 2016 election interference.”

The Special Counsel’s Office didn’t bring charges because their investigation didn’t find evidence of obstruction of justice. To obstruct justice, the person has to obstruct a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation didn’t start because a criminal investigation wouldn’t have been properly predicated. The investigators knew from Day One that the subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy known to specialize in Russia’s disinformation projects.

The DOJ can investigate all it wants. It’s a dry well. There’s a reason why nothing from Mueller’s investigation found its way into the Democrats’ articles of impeachment. Watch Jim Jordan utterly shred Mueller during a House Judiciary Committee hearing:

You want Mueller testifying? You can’t be serious.

Representative Mike Quigley of Illinois, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, which investigated Trump, said he believes some of the president’s actions warrant further scrutiny. “No one wants to give the perception of being vindictive,” Quigley said. “But, you know, I think there’s genuine concern with ongoing criminal activities. So, at the very least those should be looked at.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has suggested forming an independent commission within the Justice Department to investigate the Trump administration and pursue criminal charges if appropriate.

It’s apparent that Democrats are vindictive to the Nth Degree. They’ve spent so much time investigating that they don’t know how to do substantive things that actually help people.

The Hunter Biden plot thickened. It thickened when it was reported that the “laptop and hard drive” was connected “with a money laundering investigation in late 2019,” thus raising a new set of questions for the Bidens.

Fox News reported that “multiple federal law enforcement officials, as well as two separate government officials, confirmed the authenticity of these documents, which were signed by FBI Special Agent Joshua Wilson. Wilson did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. One of the documents, obtained by Fox News, was designated as an FBI ‘Receipt for Property’ form, which details the bureau’s interactions with John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of ‘The Mac Shop’ who reported the laptop’s contents to authorities.” Then there’s this:

The document has a “Case ID” section, which is filled in with a hand-written number: 272D-BA-3065729.

According to Dan Bongino, “272 is the 3-digit FBI code for money laundering, D means transnational.”

The sound quality isn’t the greatest but it’s ok. Bongino’s debate idea is a little unusual but it’s on the right track. Joe Biden wouldn’t know how to handlle it. If Biden insists that it’s a smear designed to ruin his family, President Trump can then ask if Biden thinks that the FBI field office is into smearing presidential candidates. At that point, what does Biden say? That’s the typical heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. This complicates things even more for Biden:

That’s a grand jury subpoena. How does Biden explain that away? Answer: he can’t. The other question left is whether the MSM will continue protecting him with their silence. I don’t think they can at that point.

Joe Biden’s panic for the Hunter Biden-Burisma scandal is showing. RedState is reporting that the Biden presidential campaign won’t have any public appearances until Thursday night’s debate in Memphis. Supposedly, he’s off the trail for “debate prep.” If you aren’t buying that, you aren’t alone.

That isn’t the only reason for Biden’s panic. The MSM has been pushing the narrative that the Hunter Biden-Burisma scandal is a “Russian disinformation operation.” This morning, DNI Ratcliffe shot that narrative to smithereens.

Meanwhile, one-trick pony Adam Schiff insists that the e-mails are part of a Russian disinformation operation. John Ratcliffe totally shreds the Schiff misinformation operation during his interview with Maria Bartiromo:

“It’s funny that some of the people who complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing the intelligence,” Ratcliffe said. “Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

He added: “Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress.”

That’s coming from the guy who sees the most intelligence in the US with the exception of the President. By now, it’s apparent that this isn’t just a smear campaign against the Biden campaign. By now, it’s apparent that this scandal is real and that the proof for it is legitimate and verified.

The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into then-President-Elect Trump was illegitimate. In fact, a previous counterintelligence investigation provided the proof:

The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

CBS’s Catherine Herridge reports:

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

Here’s Page 1:

Here’s Page 2:

Ms. Herridge later wrote “The two-page memo states the case was not reopened, and there is no indication the FISA court was ever told that the dossier source was the subject of an earlier FBI probe.” That’s proof that a) the Mueller Investigation wasn’t properly predicated and b) the FBI didn’t notify the FISA Court that the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy. Had the FBI disclosed that information, the FBI wouldn’t have gotten a wiretap warrant on Carter Page.

Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials will, at minimum, receive intense new scrutiny from John Durham. It’s apparent that the Obama FBI senior staff was filled with corrupt people. The MSM will, of course, ignore that and continue touting the Obama administration as virtually corruption free.

This weekend, Nancy Pelosi announced that she was calling Congress back into session. Hearings will be held. Every DC stone will be overturned. When Ms. Pelosi wants to know something, she gets her way. This time, Pelosi said “that she would call the House back from its annual summer recess for a vote this week on legislation to block changes at the Postal Service that voting advocates warn could disenfranchise Americans casting ballots by mail during the pandemic.”

This is child’s play. Those who are healthy should vote in person or absentee. With virtually every state having some form of early voting, states should be able to figure out how to cast votes without risking people’s health. At-risk individuals should be allowed to cast votes by mail, provided that the ballots are received the Friday before Election Day. Giving people half the month of October to vote early is more than sufficient. People arguing otherwise aren’t serious people. They shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Be that as it may, that isn’t the issue that deserves serious congressional investigations. The escalating Portland riots deserve the most attention. That isn’t getting the attention required to fix the situation. Here’s shocking news that people couldn’t have predicted:;

Violence erupted in Portland late Sunday just blocks from the federal courthouse after the driver of a pickup truck crashed, was reportedly pulled from the vehicle and then brutally beaten by a mob after a confrontation with protesters.

Videos that emerged from the scene were chilling. The man identified as the driver could be seen getting punched, kicked and ordered not to leave in the middle of a city street. The man in the video, at one point, appeared dazed after the initial assault, but suffered the worst blow when he absorbed a roundhouse kick to the side of the head.

Ms. Pelosi isn’t interested in restoring order to Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis or NYC. Apparently, Ms. Pelosi thinks that she can harness the energy of these rioters to hold onto her Speaker’s gavel. That’s foolish thinking. Then there’s this:


Democrats haven’t shown interest in stopping this type of violence. If they’re elected, why should I think that Democrats would fix this situation?

Sgt. Kevin Allen, a police spokesman, said reports indicate that protesters “were chasing the truck before it crashed, and they assaulted the driver after the crash.” He said responding officers “encountered a hostile crowd and a squad from the Rapid Response Team responded to help secure the scene while the investigation was underway.”

One of the videos posted to social media begins with the man on his knees in the city street surrounded by a group of people. The man tries to get up and someone yells, “You’re not leaving, bro,” and he gets pushed back to the ground.

It isn’t that voting isn’t important. It’s that maintaining public safety is the government’s highest priority.

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, “will plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.”

Clinesmith is being charged in federal court in Washington and is expected to plead guilty to one count of making a false statement, his attorney Justin Shur told 360aproko news. “Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility,” Shur later said in a statement.

That’s lawyerspeak for saying ‘My client is guilty as sin’ without admitting he’s guilty as sin. Sean Davis of the Federalist wrote this article on the expected Clinesmith guilty plea. In that article, Davis wrote this:

Horowitz and his team wrote in a 434-page report that Clinesmith, identified in the report as “OGC Attorney”, altered an email from a separate U.S. federal agency, believed to be the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to falsely state that Page had never worked with the CIA to investigate suspected Russia agents operating within the U.S. In fact, as Clinesmith was told by the operative, Page had worked with the CIA previously, as well as with the FBI.

It’s difficult to picture a more corrupt action. This is a severe violation of Carter Page’s civil rights, starting with the Fourth Amendment. The text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It’s difficult to picture how a search could be determined to be reasonable if it’s based on a lie. Further, how could misrepresenting the facts satisfy the legal standard of probable cause? Clinesmith allegedly changed the email used in the FISA warrant application from saying that that Carter Page was a CIA asset to saying Page had never been a CIA asset. Further, the Fourth Amendment requires that someone affirm the accuracy of the application.

This is the first investigation into the Russia Collusion hoax that’s actually presented evidence of a crime. Adam Schiff’s faux impeachment investigation presented hearsay testimony but it didn’t present evidence that a crime had been committed. Schiff played fast and loose with the rules of evidence. Durham is a legitimate investigator who found the original email, then found the doctored email.

This is just the first shoe to drop. Clinesmith didn’t have the authority to sign off on the warrant application. He was just one piece of this puzzle.

Lindsey Graham spoke out yesterday, saying that Robert Mueller should testify in front of his Committee if he’s going to write Washington Post op-eds. The article states “Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Sunday that he will grant Democrats’ request to have former special counsel Robert Mueller testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election before the committee.”

I can imagine Mueller not wanting to testify. The reasons’ names are Graham, Grassley, Lee, Cruz, Hawley and Kennedy. Mueller wouldn’t b worried about answering questions about his op-ed. He’d be plenty worried about answering questions about the Special Counsel investigation he conducted into Gen. Flynn. He’d be on the hot seat answering why the Special Counsel investigation was needed. He’d feel the heat answering why the FBI’s DC Field Office recommended shutting the Flynn investigation down when they didn’t find any “derogatory information” against Flynn. Imagine how Mueller would squirm when presented with Jim Comey’s note that said that the Flynn-Kislyak calls were “totally legit.”

Mueller certainly would’ve gotten that information at the start of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Despite the fact that the investigation lacked proper predication, Mueller bankrupted Flynn based on charges that weren’t sustainable. Besides partisanship, why would Mueller continue investigating when he knew that a) the Steele Dossier was unsubstantiated, b) the FBI’s DC Field Office recommended dismissing the investigation into Gen. Flynn and c) Jim Comey had said that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls were legitimate?

If Mueller thinks they’ll just talk about Roger Stone, he’s kidding himself. In the op-ed, he wrote this:

“We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.”

Let’s see whether he’d repeat that testimony. Did Mueller’s investigators act “with the highest integrity” when they prosecuted Gen. Flynn after the FBI’s DC field office recommended Operation Crossfire Razor be terminated? Did Mueller’s investigators act “with the highest integrity” when they tipped off CNN before they executed a pre-dawn raid of Roger Stone?

Let’s hear Mueller’s testimony to those questions. If he thinks that’s acting “with the highest integrity”, then people will think, rightly, that Mueller’s part of the swamp just like Jim Comey is.

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.

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.