Archive for the ‘FBI’ Category

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.

Apparently, Adam Schiff is in panic mode now that transcripts of the House Intel Committee are about to be released. What’s supposedly getting under Schiff’s skin is that he’s about to be exposed:

Another source familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that the people interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia probe were asked whether they had evidence that Trump, himself, or the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election.

Two sources familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that not one of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion. “The transcripts show a total lack of evidence, despite Schiff personally going out saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion,” one source involved in House Russia investigations told Fox News.

Mueller, similarly, at the conclusion of his nearly two-year-long investigation, said he and his team found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did not reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, which current Attorney General Bill Barr ultimately decided not to pursue.

Then there’s this:

While law enforcement officials have long maintained that there was clear intelligence Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, to date, there have been no charges concerning actual conspiracy against people associated with the Trump campaign, which was at the core of the Russia investigation.

There isn’t any dispute that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The question was whether people from the Trump campaign assisted in that meddling. It isn’t that Mueller couldn’t find enough evidence to recommend impeachment of President Trump. It’s that the official Mueller Report didn’t find any evidence that anyone in the United States worked with the Russians.

This should make Schiff nervous:

This won’t help Schiff’s credibility, either:

“According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft,” Schiff declared at a March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing.

“Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company,” the California Democrat added.

Later, Schiff added this:

For instance, Schiff claimed this about the Steele dossier in a Nov. 15, 2017 interview with The Wall Street Journal: “The bigger factor is how much of it can you corroborate and how much of it is true. A lot of it has turned out to be true.”

Adam Schiff is a guttersnipe and a Democrat partisan hack. If Nancy Pelosi cared about integrity, which she doesn’t, she should’ve thrown Schiff out of the House.

Most people outside the DC Beltway know who Brandon Van Grack is. Before this morning, I didn’t know who he was. That’s certainly changing rapidly. After reading this article, I suspect that’s going to change.

First, Van Grack was part of Robert Mueller’s team of partisan attorneys. Next, it’s important to know that since “February 2018, Van Grack has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the government’s possession ‘that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.'”

Third and most importantly, Van Grack might have some explaining to do:

In an October 2019 filing, Van Grack denied governmental misconduct and assured the court that the government “has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery and disclosure obligations, including those imposed pursuant to Brady and the Court’s Standing Order.”

That might be difficult to prove in light of this information:

What Van Grack didn’t inform the court about, and didn’t provide to Flynn, was the newly unsealed January 4, 2017 “Closing Communication” from the FBI Washington Field Office, which recommended the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.”

It’s difficult to picture anything more exculpatory than an FBI document that says an “exhaustive search” through the FBI’s databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.” Nothing says ‘he isn’t guilty’ than a document that says there’s no predication for “further investigative efforts.” That’s like a bright flashing neon light saying ‘He isn’t guilty. Stop wasting our time.”

Remember that Operation Crossfire Razor, the surveillance operation into Gen. Flynn, remained open only because Peter Strzok overruled field officers who wanted to shut down Operation Razor. Then there’s this:

He argued to Sullivan that Flynn’s “conduct and communications with Russia went to the heart of that inquiry.” And Van Grack said that Flynn’s alleged “false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were absolutely material.”

But by that time, the FBI had already cleared Flynn of any improper ties or coordination with Russia. Shedding light on internal FBI deliberations, notes from the then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, written before the Flynn interview and after discussions with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told, show discussions of whether their “goal” was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

Devin Nunes has taken hit after hit from partisan hacks like Adam Schiff for years. Schiff even published a memo that said virtually everything in the Nunes Memo was wrong. The Horowitz utterly discredited Schiff’s memo.

Now the question is whether the Senate will interrogate Brandon Van Grack. If they believe in justice and equal justice under the law. Unfortunately, that’s still debatable at this point.

While some corrupt Democrats insist that the released Flynn documents aren’t a smoking gun, fair-minded Democrats say the opposite. Norman Eisen, the apologist for corrupt Democrats, wrote that “A review of these internal FBI communications, however, shows none of the wrongdoing that Mr. Trump would like to see. But no matter: The mischaracterization of these documents as evidence of FBI misconduct, and by extension, absolution of Mr. Flynn, signals that the president will escalate his abuses of power in the run-up to the 2020 election.” That’s quite a trick. A hand-written note from Bill Priestap asked “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The FBI should be in the business of investigating crimes, not manufacturing crimes that they hope to use to impeach and remove a president they don’t like.

Mr. Eisen, it’s sad that you don’t recognize corruption when you see it. Eisen wrote “The Michael Flynn scandal was one of the first to reveal the pattern of lawlessness that has characterized the Trump administration. In December 2016, Mr. Flynn, in a phone call, successfully implored Russia to moderate retaliation against the United States for sanctions imposed because of the attack on U.S. elections. The conduct raised serious questions under the Logan Act, which prohibits private parties from conducting U.S. foreign policy.”

Flynn wasn’t a private citizen at that point. He had already been named President-Elect Trump’s National Security Adviser. Calling foreign ambassadors is what NSAs do as part of their job. Mark Penn has a different opinion of what Priestap’s hand-written note represents:

The new documents are in effect the “smoking gun” proving that a cabal at the FBI acted above the law and with extreme political bias, targeting people for prosecution rather than investigating crimes.

Then Penn wrote this:

The principal evidence that prompted the FBI to open the overall investigation into Trump has been definitively determined to be the Steele dossier. We now know, based on recently disclosed footnotes in the Horowitz report, that the dossier was discredited by its own sources and may even have been deliberate Russian disinformation. After receiving this information, the FBI’s top brass, even after learning that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, opened a broad investigation into Trump and his campaign.

What was this “broad investigation” predicated on? The fact that the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation? Was the FBI attracted to it because its authors discredited the report? Former federal prosecutor Trey Gowdy was visibly upset when what the Priestap note represented:

I’ll take the thoughts of a former federal prosecutor over the words of a Democrat political operative anytime. Eisen is a Democrat political hack. Trey Gowdy is a former federal prosecutor who never lost a case in his career.

Anyone thinking that the (Comey/McCabe/Strzok/Page) FBI-Flynn fight will be the final fight is kidding themselves. Chuck Grassley’s tweet sounds like he’s just warming up:


Random thought: Sen. Grassley is a serious senator. Unlike some of the Democrat show horses, Sen. Grassley brings a lunch pail when he starts asking questions. He’s extremely thorough and he gets to the bottom of things. If I was Mueller, I’d start worrying.

Another person who shouldn’t be taken lightly is Kim Strassel. She’s as persistent as Sen. Grassley. This is the first tweet of a lengthy multi-tweet string:


Rather than embedding the other tweets in this chain, I’ll just post the texts of those tweets:

  1. The new docs show FBI had already cleared Flynn of ludicrous claims that he was agent of Russian power; it moved to close that investigation on Jan 4 2017. But then DOJ cooked up the absurd Logan Act claim, the notion Flynn had violated an obscure 1799 law.
  2. Again if they thought he violated Logan, all they had to do was prosecute. They had the transcript. Their problem? They knew such ridiculousness would never fly. So how else to nail Flynn? As the notes show, Logan just became the pretext for interview.
  3. The real goal was trap him into saying something at odds with transcript, to “get him to lie.” And the evidence of that strategy is everywhere. We have Comey bragging that they went around WH legal counsel, so Flynn would have no representation.
  4. We have a new email from Lisa Page asking how FBI can get around issuing to Flynn the standard admonition against lying, suggesting Strzok just “casually slip that in.”
  5. We have McCabe docs showing he discouraged him from getting lawyer. FBI decided to get rid of standard admonition altogether. Also did not tell Flynn he was being interviewed in an “investigatory” context, suggesting this was a chat between gov officials.
  6. As for liberal commentators/legal scholars saying all this is “routine,” well, let’s sure as hell hope not. The FBI exists to investigate cries–not create them.

Actually, it isn’t routine. Thank God for old-fashioned liberals who fight for civil rights:


When Flynn is either exonerated or pardoned, expect Sidney Powell or some other high-powered attorney to file a lawsuit against Comey, McCabe, Strzok and Page. Expect Gen. Flynn’s wealth to be restored — and then some.

After reading this statement, I’d argue that it’s time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats’ corruption. Specifically, it’s time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.

The key part of the statement said “According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, ‘U.S. officials volunteered … that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions,’ which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort.” It doesn’t stop there. Here’s what it says when it continues:

“During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, ‘U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

Doesn’t that sound like “U.S. officials” saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey’s FBI? Why did “U.S. officials” want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They’ve never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:

According to Telizhenko:

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.

Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don’t want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.

The upper echelons of the FBI better prepared their lives turned upside-down. The Justice Department announced that “at least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause.”

One of the people who should be worried about this news is Chairman Schiff. He should be worried because “Schiff had previously insisted the Page FISA warrants met ‘rigorous’ standards for probable cause, and mocked Republicans for suggesting otherwise.” Then there’s this:

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was among the two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

This doesn’t mean that the first 2 FISA warrants met the FISA Court’s standards. It simply means that a determination hasn’t been reached on those applications yet.

At minimum, Rosenstein, McCabe and Comey should be very worried. Lying to the FISC should be accompanied by a lengthy stint of gathering striped sunlight. Their actions should result in the DOJ and FBI reaching a large, quick settlement with Carter Page. Clearly, Carter Page was hurt reputationally. When a person is hurt as a result of corruption, the corrupt people need to write checks with a half-dozen zeros to the left of the decimal point.

The Justice Department said the FBI should have discontinued its secret surveillance of Page far earlier than it did because “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.” The DOJ’s letter was revealed in a January 7 court filing unsealed on Thursday.

“Thanks in large part to the work of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets,” the letter states. “DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.'”

At this point, it’s indisputable that corruption was pervasive throughout the top echelon (singular, not plural) of the Obama-Comey FBI. It’s clear, too, that Rod Rosenstein wasn’t the boy scout he claimed to be.

Bipartisan support is growing for tearing down the FISC as it’s currently constructed. The judges that sit on the FISC were warned by Devin Nunes while he still chaired the House Intel Committee about these abuses:

“The way that the court has conducted themselves is totally inappropriate, they ignored clear evidence that we’d presented to them … they did absolutely nothing about it,” Nunes told Fox News host Martha McCallum late Tuesday. “They’ve left Congress no choice but to have to step in and fix this process.”

Finally, there’s this:

When Republicans complained that anti-Trump lawyer David Kris had gotten appointed to oversee the FISA reforms, people predictably questioned whether Republicans were playing politics with the appointment. That hasn’t disappeared yet but it should now that independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has written this article on the subject.

In her article, Ms. Attkisson highlights the main problems associated with this appointment, starting with this:

On Twitter, Kris called Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead,” and wrote that Trump and his advisers should be “worried” that the “walls are closing in” regarding the Mueller probe. Kris also bought into the now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia and Putin.

In other words, the FISC appointed a political hack at a time when the FISC needed a nonpartisan person to supervise these FISA reforms. Then there’s this:

To some, the appointment of Kris to help with the job is as mysterious as to why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own. It would seem more important than ever to have an apolitical person, or a balanced group of people, conducting oversight of these politically sensitive matters.

Why didn’t the FISC police these warrant applications? It wasn’t until after the Horowitz Report had been published that the judge put out a warning. That isn’t policing the process. That’s CYA after the fact.

There’s no question that we need something that hunts the bad guys but that also keeps Big Brother playing fair. If anything is certain, it’s that FISA won’t get renewed without major changes. If Christopher Wray doesn’t step forward with a lengthy list of reforms, then FISA should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Things get more questionable with this tweet from whistle-blower attorney Mark Zaid:


The op-ed written by Mike Morrell and David Kris says “This summer, a whistleblower complained to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community of an alleged ‘violation’ of law, ‘abuse’ of authority or similar problem. The inspector general, in turn, advised the acting DNI, and later the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint was both credible and ‘urgent,’ meaning it involved something ‘serious or flagrant’ or otherwise significant.”

Why didn’t Kris and Morrell highlight the fact that the faux whistle-blower isn’t covered by the ICWPA? For that matter, why didn’t Kris mention that the person who tweeted about the op-ed is the faux whistle-blower’s attorney? Additionally, Mr. Zaid is the partisan Democrat who tweeted that “the coup” had started about 10 days after President Trump had been inaugurated?

Anyone associated with Mr. Zaid shouldn’t be associated with FISA reform. Period.