Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

It’s time to call out the St. Cloud Times for protecting their leftist cronies. This Our View Editorial is disgusting. It’s about the postponed Dismantling Hate Crimes event from this past Wednesday. Here’s the opening of the SCTimes’ article:

Sadly, people driven by fear are still driving the public agenda. Witness about two dozen people who showed up Wednesday at the St. Cloud Library to protest a panel discussion about dismantling hate crimes because, well, spreading hate and fear is their go-to.

Shame on the Times for publishing this trash. This isn’t worthy of a college newspaper, much less worthy of a once-respectable newspaper. This editorial is cringeworthy for its sloppiness and fact gathering.

First, the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission published a postponement notice on their Facebook page Wednesday afternoon. The timestamp for the post is 1:16 pm on Sept. 18th:

Next, 2 groups were there at the Library that might’ve been considered protest groups. One was a group who prayed for the Persecuted Church. The other organization is called the “Freedom Speaks Coalition.”

One of the groups applied for and received a permit to use a room in the Public Library from 2:00 pm-4:00 pm September 18. The Dismantling Hate Crimes event didn’t start until 6:00 pm. The Times’ hit piece continues:

First, though, many of the picketers (who showed up despite the cancellation that came soon before the event was to begin) would not stand up for their beliefs in the most basic way possible, by putting their names to their convictions. Offered the opportunity by journalists from the St. Cloud Times and other news outlets to explain their point of view, many offered their thoughts but most refused to provide their names.

Why would a sane person give the Times their name considering the Times Editorial Board’s penchant for smearing its political opponents? The Times is a media organization. Do they think we don’t know that they’re aware of Antifa protests on college campuses against conservatives and Christians? Am I supposed to believe that they aren’t aware of the violence that #BlackLivesMatters has perpetrated? Democrat-affiliated thugs like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and CAIR shouldn’t be trusted.

Notice that the Times trusted MDHR’s and CAIR’s narrative that the event was cancelled because some peaceful protesters showed up at the event. What the Times didn’t mention is that the event was postponed before the protesters arrived at the Library. Notice that the Times omitted the fact that Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton told Times reporter Jenny Berg that they hadn’t received any threats regarding the event.

Does the Times actually think that this postponement is legitimate? The SC Chief of Police was scheduled to participate in the discussion, as was an FBI supervisor. Also, 2 St. Cloud police officers were there. To think that CAIR and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights would get frightened by these protesters is foolish.

I’m tired of the Times Editorial Board either watering down their editorials to protect their political favorites or ignoring major facts. (Think Jeff Oxton’s statement.) The Times is supposed to be a news-gathering organization. It’d be nice if their work product reflected that. This video by Marni Hockenberg lays out pretty much the same facts that I laid out in this post:

In the stranger-than-fiction category, it’s apparent that the official statement issued by Commissioner Rebecca Lucero are spreading nationwide. These media outlets accept as Gospel Commissioner Lucero’s non-truths. For instance, this article quotes Lucero when she said “Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state.” The article continues, saying “Lucero says she is ‘heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes.'”

No attempt was made to stifle free speech. Commissioner Lucero shouldn’t spread lies about people exercising their right to speak freely about matters of religion and government. I don’t know what’s worse — Commissioner Lucero spreading propaganda or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights attempting to criticize people exercising their right to free speech.

The right to free speech doesn’t just apply to Democrats. A wise man once said that ‘the law protects everyone or it doesn’t protect anyone.’ How can the Human Rights Commissioner in Minnesota dispute that.

The sad part is that Commissioner Lucero’s propaganda is spreading like wildfire. The AP article stripped out things like the fact that Jeff Oxton, the St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief, said that they were monitoring things but that they hadn’t received any threats concerning the event. Why didn’t the AP keep that part of the SCTimes article in the AP article? It’s like the AP intentionally did that just like the NYTimes’ editors omitted the part about the supposed victim doesn’t recall the incident and isn’t talking to anyone.

The more articles I see with Commissioner Lucero’s highly inaccurate quote, the more certain I am that the Dismantling Hate Crimes event was nothing more than a Democrat publicity stunt. Our commissioners don’t just serve the governor. They’re supposed to serve We The People, too. I don’t know how they can do that when they turn a blind eye on a special interest’s propaganda. That’s what CAIR did with Jaylani Hussein’s rhetoric.

Hussein said that CAIR is a civil rights organization in one breath, then insists that groups like “Freedom Speaks Coalition is a hate group.” This is the USA, where that type of organization can criticize organizations like CAIR or politicians like Commissioner Lucero. Apparently, CAIR didn’t learn that in Civil Rights 101 when it was in law school. Perhaps they were attending a Farrakhan rally the day they taught that.

Then again, they might not have learned that because CAIR is really just Hamas DBA as CAIR in the USA:

It’s one thing for CAIR to spread their propaganda. It’s quite another when a commissioner that works for us puts out a statement that accuses her bosses, aka We The People, of committing hate crimes. That’s quite a prejudice for a human rights department.

It’s virtually impossible to take Jim Clapper or Jim Comey seriously. A day after Michael Horowitz’s DOJ IG report excoriated Comey, Jim Clapper attempted to come to Comey’s rescue saying “I think he did what he thought was the right thing. Yeah, it violated the standard protocols and procedures of the FBI. I don’t think there’s a rule book, though, for this extraordinary situation involving potential, and emphasize potential, criminality of a president.”

That’s BS from Clapper and he knows it. It’s sanctimoniousness, too. Pretending that the counterintelligence investigation was legitimate doesn’t fly. People understand that the thing that got it started, the Steele Dossier, was utterly discredited over a year ago. That thing is a dead horse and there’s no way to revive it like Jesus revived Lazarus. This is BS, too:

“So Jim did what he thought was the right thing to do for the country. Now, one man’s leaker is another man’s whistleblower. And in this case, I think he was whistle-blowing to the public. We would not have known what we’ve since learned, I think, were it not for the action that Jim took,” he added.

Clapper knows that there’s a procedure that whistleblowers follow. It’s actually a pretty well-designed system. This is key to understanding whistleblower status:

Under this framework, intelligence community whistleblowers are not protected from retaliation if they raise “differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,” but are protected if they raise violations of laws, rules, or regulations.

That’s a pretty wide gulf between what’s protected and what isn’t protected. If Comey thought that President Trump was violating the law, then it’s Comey’s obligation to invoke whistleblower status.

It’s clear that Comey’s complaints fit into the “differences of opinion” category. Therefore, Clapper’s statement doesn’t pass the laugh test. Further, Clapper knew that the Dossier was trash. Anything built with that as a foundation was junk. This is mostly about people simply hating Trump on a deep personal level. This has nothing to do with saving the nation from a madman.

Let’s be clear about something regarding the thugs who shot at San Antonio’s ICE Facility. They aren’t protesters. They aren’t activists. They’re full-fledged domestic terrorists. Now the FBI is investigating the terrorist attack, as it should.

The people working in that building are federal employees, making it the feds’ jurisdiction. Obviously, I don’t know who fired the shots but it isn’t a stretch to think that the terrorists are affiliated with the Democratic Party. Democrats have said nothing about organizations like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and Indivisible. So-called protesters visited Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home in Kentucky, where one of the terrorists said that she wished that someone would stab the motherf—-r in the heart:

Let’s hope that terrorist is arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But that’s a different terrorist attack. Let’s return to the one in San Antonio. Here’s what we know at this point:

The FBI said Tuesday it is investigating after shots were fired in the early morning hours at a San Antonio office building that houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No one was injured in the shooting, officials said.

Investigators say that around 3:00 a.m. Tuesday, shots were fired into a window of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office and Removal Operations Field Office.

Later, a press conference was held:

The FBI special-agent-in-charge Christopher Combs called it a “targeted attack.” “To fire indiscriminately into any building especially a federal facility is not an act of protest- it’s an act of violence,” Combs said at a press conference. “And in in this case it’s an act of violence that could have resulted in the assassination of a federal employee. That cannot happen in San Antonio.”

Isn’t it interesting that this terrorist attack took place in San Antonio, the home of Joaquin Castro, the man who outed Trump supporters? Isn’t it interesting that twin brother Julian Castro, a politician who is running for president as a Democrat, thinks that illegal aliens shouldn’t be charged with a crime for illegally entering into the United States?

If Democrats keep ratcheting up the immigration rhetoric by saying that detention facilities are like Nazi concentration camps, the depravity level will drop further. If Democrats keep talking about ICE ripping families apart, the next attack against an ICE facility might include fatalities. At this point, Democrats appear to be in a race to the bottom of the depravity barrel.

How low can Democrats go? God help us with that. It’s a frightening though.

What wooden stakes are to vampires, the Mueller hearings, especially the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing, is to impeachment. When John Ratcliffe asked Special Counsel Mueller what other person (besides President Trump) had the burden of proving themselves innocent, Mueller replied that nobody has had that burden imposed on them. Rep. Ratcliffe asked that in reference to Andrew Weissmann’s statement that, while they didn’t indict President Trump, they didn’t exonerate him, either.

Each time Special Counsel Mueller couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer key questions about Weissmann’s investigation, a little impeachment momentum disappeared into the ether. Once it’s gone, it isn’t returning. While Speaker Pelosi tries propping up her chairmen, she knows that impeachment is dead. She can put tons of perfume on that pig, it’s still just a pig. Here’s how Pelosi tried propping up Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler:

“The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution,” Pelosi said in the Capitol of Mueller’s testimony. “It is a crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened,” she later said during a news conference following Mueller’s testimony.

With little due respect to the Botox lady by the Bay, the hearings had the same effect on articles of impeachment that cold water has on campfires. If you want to watch Ms. Pelosi’s nauseating press conference, you can watch it here:

It’s easy to pile on Robert Mueller this morning. I’ve already done that in other posts so I won’t continue with that. That being said, the real villains in this travesty are the activists in the Resist Movement, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and other Democrats, Rod Rosenstein (who never should’ve offered Mueller the position), the FBI lovebirds (Strzok and Page), Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissman and Jim Comey.

Without these disgusting people, there wouldn’t have been a special counsel appointment. But I digress. Another thing that needs to be highlighted is the discipline that Republican members of the Judiciary and Intel committees showed yesterday. They shined like I’ve never seen them shine before.

Usually, politicians participating in high profile hearings specialize in grandstanding. That didn’t happen Wednesday. Each member focused like a laser on a specific topic in their attempt to elicit new information. That’s the new model that Republicans should adopt for high profile hearings from now on.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler also said his committee would go to court Thursday to seek access to grand jury material in the Mueller report and to enforce a subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn to try to get him to testify. “Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American people. With those facts we can proceed,” Nadler said — although he, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.

Stick a wooden stake in that impeachment vampire. It’s dead. CPR won’t resuscitate this patient, either. Fill our the toe tag for impeachment. Unless Democrats want to lose the House again in a landslide.

Robert Mueller has a big problem that he can’t get rid of. When I say big, I’m talking about 6’8″ of a problem. His name is Jim Comey and, if Republicans choose to go this direction, Robert Mueller will have lots of uncomfortable explaining to do tomorrow. It isn’t that Comey is in Mueller’s report — except in Mueller’s footnotes.

Eric Felten of RealClearInvestigations, aka RCI, painstakingly reviewed the Mueller Report. What he found is especially noteworthy:

One of the bedrock decisions investigators must make in complex probes filled with incomplete and contradictory accounts is whom to believe. Dozens of footnotes in the Mueller report make it clear that the special counsel placed absolute faith in former FBI Director James Comey.

Dozens of the footnotes refer to memos Comey wrote recording his account of meetings and phone calls with President Trump. These include memos dated Jan. 7 and Jan. 28, 2017, as well as notes from Feb. 14, March 30 and April 11. Those memoranda were treated as the evidentiary gold standard by Mueller. Long stretches of the special counsel’s report hang almost exclusively on Comey’s say-so. One or another of Comey’s memos are cited some three dozen times in Volume II alone, which addresses possible obstruction by Trump. Mueller relies on Comey memos in footnotes 109, 110, 111, and 112, and then in footnotes 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182 and so on. Comey was also interviewed by the FBI and numerous are the footnotes — 68, 108, 109-112, 176-78, 180-82 and more, anchoring the narrative in his testimony.

If Comey is the verification anchor of Mueller’s report, then Comey isn’t an anchor. He’s a millstone — around Mueller’s neck. Here’s why:

Mueller relied so heavily on Comey’s memos that he felt the need to argue the superior believability of the former FBI head’s version of events. He uses legal citations that “contemporaneous written notes can provide strong corroborating evidence” and that “a witness’s recitation of his account before he had any motive to fabricate also supports the witness’s credibility.” Perhaps. But Comey was not a disinterested observer. As Paul Sperry reports for RealClearInvestigations, citing sources familiar with an internal Justice Department review, the FBI director Trump inherited was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president.

Which means that Comey was writing his memos with an eye to swaying future legal and public opinion. Upon finishing a memo, he would run it by his top deputies (see footnotes 187 and 188 in Volume II) to make sure it served its purpose. Comey’s memos may or may not be the “strong corroborating evidence” Mueller claims, but Comey surely intended for those memoranda to establish his version of events.

Contemporaneous notes aren’t corroborative in and of themselves. If the ‘corroboration’ comes from a liar and a demagogue, they’d quickly turn into the aforementioned millstone. Put another way, GIGO, aka Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Put yet another way, trusting Comey’s insights of an investigation into the man who fired him is as foolish as relying on Michael Cohen’s testimony. The only person stupid enough to trust Comey or Cohen are people with a gun to their proverbial head. Add into that the fact that it was just discovered that Comey lied to President Trump while targeting President Trump:

Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general’s investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially “running a covert operation against” the president, starting with a private “defensive briefing” he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a “counterintelligence assessment” of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.

If this is accurate, then what little was left of Comey’s credibility is gone. Subsequently, the credibility of Mueller’s report would likely evaporate. Mueller should’ve just left well enough alone:

After reading this post by John Hinderaker, I can’t sit idly by. The pictures embedded in Michelle Malkin’s tweets should make any decent-minded people furious. After the tweeted picture, John said “Once again, I call on all Democrats to stop defending and promoting Antifa, and rather to disavow the fascists in their midst.”

I don’t disagree with John, though I’m a bit more upset with these criminals. There’s no doubt that Democrats know who these criminals are. After all, Antifa are nothing more than violent activist Democrat thugs.

First, it’s time to dispatch accountability troops to Portland. If that’s law enforcement from the state level or FBI agents, I don’t care. It’s time to throw these thugs into prison. Next, it’s time for the Portland City Council to ban face masks on city streets. Either your face is exposed or you’re arrested. Period. Third, it’s time to defeat Mayor Ted Wheeler. He’s a wimp who won’t stand up to his city’s criminals:


Wheeler won’t even name Antifa. That’s stunning because it’s totally cowardly. It sounds like Ilhan Omar saying “some people did something” in describing 9/11.

If Democrats won’t rat out their Antifa activists, US voters should throw Democrats out of office in 2020. Democrats aren’t committed to civil rights. They’re committed to political power at all costs. They aren’t patriots. Democrats are the opposite of patriots.

In this opinion piece, former VP Joe Biden wrote that “We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.” He continued, saying “Our country is made up of hard-working, aspirational people from every culture, from every nation — and that is an indisputable strength. There’s no better example of the richness that’s possible when the United States is closely knit together with our neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean than the city of Miami.”

After that, Sleepy Joe gets a little confusing. He said “That starts by recognizing that DREAMers are Americans, and Congress needs to make it official. The millions of undocumented people in the United States can only be brought out of the shadows through fair treatment, not ugly threats.” Which is it, Joe? Are we a nation of laws or are we supposed to ignore people that are now flooding into the US due to loopholes in our asylum laws? Those folks aren’t DREAMers. They’re an entirely new categorization of illegal immigrants.

Our asylum system needs to be improved, but the answer is to streamline and strengthen it so that it benefits legitimate claims of those fleeing persecution, while reducing potential for abuse.

Joe’s actually right for a change. Our asylum system needs to be improved. Why Biden doesn’t tell Democrats to get off their posteriors and help fix the problem is puzzling, though. Thus far, Democrats have done exactly nothing to fix that crisis. Then there’s this:

And it’s imperative that we secure our borders, but “Build the wall” is a slogan divorced from reality.

National security isn’t Joe’s strength. The MSM reports it to be but former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of over the past four decades.”

It won’t stop the flow of illegal narcotics or human trafficking, both of which come primarily through legal ports of entry. Nor will it stop asylum seekers fleeing the most desperate conditions imaginable and who have the right to have their cases heard. Nor will it stem the numbers of undocumented, most of whom overstay legal visas.

This isn’t difficult to translate. The Obama-Biden administration did virtually nothing to fix asylum laws. They didn’t build the wall, which is essential. (Joe says it isn’t. Israel says it’s highly successful. I’ll side with the Israelis.)

Under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages, tear-gassing asylum seekers, ripping children from their mothers’ arms — actions that subvert American values and erode our ability to lead on the global stage.

Joe, it isn’t President Trump’s fault that the MSM showed pictures of children in cages that were from the Obama-Biden administration. You, not President Trump, locked kids in cages:

Biden suffers from Democrat Syndrome. Its prominent tell-tale sign is the inability to tell the truth. That’s been a frequent problem with Joe. He’s a serial plagiarist. He’s campaigned by telling blacks that Mitt Romney wanted to “put y’all back in chains”:

The good news is that VP Biden isn’t the strongest frontrunner I’ve ever seen. Then again, he isn’t running against a strong group of candidates. This might be the worst list of presidential candidates that the Democrats have ever put forward.

It’s indisputable that the US is a nation of immigrants. What’s disputable is whether we’re a nation of laws anymore. It’s disputable because former FBI Director Jim Comey appropriated the authority given to the Attorney General. It’s disputable because the FBI used information that it knew was fraudulent to get a warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Further, the FBI got that warrant by telling the FISA Court that the fraudulent information had been verified.

That isn’t what a nation of laws does. That’s what a bunch of criminals do.

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.

As is becoming the case more often lately, Rep. Devin Nunes has uncovered another important document that provides a more complete picture of the Mueller special counsel investigation.

According to the article, Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-CA), “told Fox News he’d reviewed still-classified materials related to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memos outlining the breadth of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation. He said the bulk of the information in the second scope memo came from the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who was hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through funding from the Clinton campaign and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

The further we dig into this fishing expedition, the more we find out that the Steele document essentially triggered the government’s surveillance and the government’s investigation. That’s pretty frightening when you consider the fact that Steele’s document is likely Russian disinformation that couldn’t be verified if Steele’s life depended on it. Check out this interview:

It’s important to ask the question about whether any part of this investigation was based on legitimate, verifiable intel. If this doesn’t sound like the Deep State working overtime, then I don’t know what does. This isn’t just a screw-up. This is, quite possibly, the insurance policy that Strzok and Page talked about. It isn’t a stretch to think that Strzok and Page thought a special counsel investigation into President Trump that was based on Russian disinformation would cripple President Trump’s administration.

Why would the Intelligence Community start an investigation based on a document that they were repeatedly told was fiction? And yes, the FBI, State Department and the CIA were told the Steele document was worthless multiple times.