Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

Last week, the nation found out that Jonathan Turley a) voted for Hillary Clinton and b) is a man of integrity. This morning, it’s worth examining Prof. Turley’s op-ed about the Horowitz Report.

For instance, Prof. Turley wrote “Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.”

Prof. Turley continued, saying “In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.” How can that be? Jim Comey insists that the FBI did nothing wrong. Comey saying that the FBI did nothing wrong ranks right up there with Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.”

Then there’s this:

Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself.

This won’t turn out well for Adam Schiff, who put out a report in February, 2018. In that report, which was published after Devin Nunes published “a memo with these explosive revelations that the FBI had targeted [former Trump campaign adviser] Carter Page with surveillance warrants that the dossier from a rival campaign had been the basis for that, and that the FBI had not been straight up with the FISA court.”

While Jim Comey takes a victory lap of sorts, the truth isn’t on Mr. Comey’s side. In his op-ed, Comey said “For two years, the president of the United States and his followers have loudly declared that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. They repeatedly told the American people that the FBI had done all sorts of bad things, such as tapping Donald Trump’s wires during the campaign, opening an investigation without adequate cause, with the intent to damage Trump, and inserting secret informants into the Trump campaign.”

Kim Strassel, though, sticks with the facts in a series of tweets that are best titled “Horowitz findings of facts.” In the first tweet, she wrote “Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a “low threshold” this is. Durham’s statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.”


Ms. Strassel’s third tweet is especially sweet:

4)In fact, IG report says dossier played “central and essential role” in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.

In other words, Schiff lied while Devin Nunes got it right. That’s the inescapable truth.

Yes, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou (Mr. Comey, not Schiff), President Trump’s well-informed followers have said “that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.” Let’s talk about that a little. The Horowitz Report emphatically stated that “6)IG finds 17 separate problems with FISA court submissions, including FBI’s overstatement of Steele’s credentials. Also the failure to provide court with exculpatory evidence and issues with Steele’s sources and additional info it got about Steele’s credibility.”

Mr. Comey, if you think that vindicates the FBI, then you’re as delusional as Adam Schiff. In fact, it’s difficult determining who looks worse after reading the report’s findings. Let’s just call it a tie — for last place in the gutter.

10)Overall, IG was so concerned by these “extensive compliance failures” that is has now initiated additional “oversight” to assess how FBI in general complies with “policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons.”

Does Mr. Comey think that the inspector general adding additional oversight “to assess how FBI in general complies with ‘policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons'” is vindication for the FBI?

When the dust finally settles, the FISA warrant application process will be significantly changed to protect against the FBI’s abuses of the system. Those abuses started happening on Mr. Comey’s watch. Whether Mr. Comey or others in the upper echelons of the FBI committed crimes hasn’t been determined. That’s for Mr. Durham to determine. What’s been determined, though, is that Mr. Comey’s FBI made a series of mistakes (is it a mistake if it’s intentional?) that kept the surveillance on Carter Page intact.

What’s been determined is that the Horowitz Report vindicates Devin Nunes, the man that Democrats and Mr. Comey criticized from pillar to post. Unlike Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nunes didn’t just see what he wanted to see. Mr. Nunes saw what was actually there.

Last night, word leaked out that a former FBI lawyer had altered a document. This morning, Katie Pavlich wrote “CNN legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, who was fired by President Trump in 2017, says the news that former FBI agent Peter Strzok altered or forged a FISA warrant application used against Trump campaign associate Carter Page is ‘alarming.’ ‘That’s kind of an alarming bit of news,’ Bharara said. ‘If there was an FBI agent sworn to uphold the constitution who can be proven to have altered a document in connection with a legal proceeding, including the obtaining of a FISA warrant, that’s really serious. It doesn’t get more serious on that.'”

If Ms. Pavlich’s reporting is right, which I suspect it is, then this is a major shift in the impeachment storyline. If the underlying investigation was corrupt, why would people think that the final work product be worth anything?

The counter-intelligence investigation started during the Obama administration in an attempt by Democrats to surveil the Trump campaign. If Strzok altered the FISA warrant application in order to get the warrant, then Mr. Strzok is in serious legal trouble. Further, once corruption is detected at the FBI, John Durham’s investigation will get expanded again. Durham’s investigation expanded from a review to a full-fledged criminal investigation a month ago. With this, the scope of Durham’s investigation just got wider.

At minimum, Andy McCabe and Jim Comey should start getting worried. FISA warrants aren’t just signed off on by agents. The agent collects the information but he/she needs the boss’s approval, too.

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.