Trump Undermined

For John, BLUF:  It isn't a Democracy if the outgoing Administration is undermining the incoming Administration.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden and Other Obama Officials Sought to ‘Torpedo’ Incoming Trump Admin, Docs Show

From PJ Media, by Opinionator Matt Margolis, 10 July 2023, 1:36 PM.

Here is the lede plus one:

According to heavily redacted documents from the National Security Agency obtained by The Daily Signal, there was a coordinated effort by the outgoing Obama administration to “torpedo the incoming presidency of Donald Trump.”

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Daily Signal acquired 217 pages of documents.

“The documents reveal that Obama administration officials, from Vice President Joe Biden down to several ambassadors and many officials in the Treasury and Energy departments, gained access to secret information about Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Trump’s choice for national security adviser,” the report says.  “The documents obtained by The Daily Signal include raw information of requests and other messages from these officials to the National Security Agency in late November 2016 through early January 2017, as well as emails among NSA officials explaining why the information was shared.”

I had known about actions within the FBI to fight a Trump Presidency.  That was obvious, with FBI Director Saint James Comey and the likes of Agent Peter Strozk and Lawyer Lisa Page.  This corruption, however, I believe was greater than those three.  More widespread.  To higher reaches.

We need to get back to the President being OUR President.  Regardless of his or her party.  It is what makes the system work.  If you didn't like the November outcome, work harder in the next election.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutorial Misconduct

For John, BLUF:  The Department of Justice is working hard to convict Presidential Candidate Donsald J Trump of somesthing.  Maybe too hard.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump

Here is the sub-headline:

The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant.  If proven true, the judge would be well within her rights to consider dismissal.

From The Federalist, by Former Federal Prosecutor Will Scharf, 5 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer.  It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed.

Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office.  Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors.  According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.

If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump.  Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.

Presidential Candidate Donald J Trump has a lot of flaws.  I am reading about some of them in Commander in Cheat, a 2020 book mailed to me by my buddy, Juan.  However, it is up to the Voters to decide if Mr Trump's flaws are greater than those of his opponent.  In 2016 they said no.  In 2020 they said yes.

Comparing candidates is the job of the Voters  It is not the job of the US Department of Justice.  We went through that with Saint James Comey, who took it upon himself to save the nation and the world.  We, the Voters, do not need that kind of help.  If Mr Trump broke some law, fine, go after him.  However, let us have no DOJ intervention to "save" the nation (or President Joe Biden).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Comey Warns Of Trump in 2024

For John, BLUF:  Mr James Comey, former FBI Director, is warning about a second Trump time in office.  Do you think he fears justice?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Comey Warns Trump Might Use the Constitution Against Him and His Corrupt Friends

From PJ Media, by Opinion Writer Robert Spencer, 5 June 2023, 11:34.

Here is the lede plus two:

It is now well established that the FBI has become thoroughly and possibly irreparably corrupt and politicized, serving as a thuggish arm of the Leftist establishment rather than any kind of law enforcement agency.  Its decline accelerated during the tenure of the intensely partisan Leftist apparatchik James Comey as FBI director, but in the six years since Donald Trump removed Comey from office amid a storm of controversy, the lanky corruptocrat has shown not the slightest hint of introspection, much less regret.  Instead, he just went on MSNBC to warn that a new Trump administration could see the president weaponizing the justice system.  Well, Comey certainly knows all about weaponizing federal agencies for partisan purposes.

Former Biden explainer and current MSNBC host Jen Psaki said to Comey, “You’ve said that Trump poses a near-existential threat to the rule of law, and, and this is something, similar language, that I hear privately from national security officials, some people you and I both know, who will say this, privately, about what a second term could mean.  But tell me a little bit about the specifics of what he could try to do. What do you mean by that?”

The question was ridiculous, and the whole scenario was a charade.  Now that the Russian Collusion hoax has been definitively exposed and the Democrats’ Jan. 6 “insurrection” scenario has been discredited, Psaki should have been asking Comey about the contempt for the rule of law of his Leftist friends and colleagues, not of Donald Trump.  But for that, Psaki would have to be a genuine journalist, not a flack for the Leftist establishment playing the role of a journalist in order to fool gullible MSNBC viewers and throw red meat to the committed ideologues among their tiny audience.

I think this is a little overdrawn.  However, not by much.  I agree that among thinking Republicans Mr James Comey is understood to have been a vile person, who subverted the law and operated in unethical ways.  In short, he was not a gentleman.

Now Mr Comey comes before us and says that a Second Term President Trump would use his Constitutional powers to clean up the swamp that is Washington.  I sure hope so.  Or any other Republican elected to that office.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump v Clinton--The Judicial Event

For John, BLUF:  Former Candidate Donald Trump is suing former Candidate Hillary Clinton, over Ms Clinton slinging mud during the 2016 campaaign.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Sues Hillary Clinton, Others Over Russia Collusion 'Conspiracy'

Here is the sub-headline:

Trump also named the Democratic National Committee and former FBI Director James Comey, among other prominent figures.

From The Huffington Post, by Reporter Andre Ellington, 24 March 2022, 05:03 PM EDT.

Here is the lede plus one:

Former President Donald Trump is suing his 2016 Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and others, accusing them of a “malicious conspiracy” and again claiming they rigged the 2016 election against him.

The lawsuit repeats a common Trump claim that Clinton and other Democratic politicians conspired to create a “false narrative” that he received help from Russian allies to win the 2016 election. It comes over five years after Trump defeated Clinton in that election.

This is The Huff Post, so I expected a lot of nay-saying.  And I got it.

Fraankly, I don't expect Former President Donld Trump to win this lawsuit.  What I hope for is a "Disclosure" Phase in the trial that brings more information to the front, for us mere voters to look at.  Much of this has been previously broomed by the media, such as The Huff Post.

We are talking lawyers here, so they may drag it out past the next Presidential Election, in 2024.

Regards  —  Cliff

Irresponsible

For John, BLUF:  While I would like to believe that FBI Director Christopher Wray has cleaned up the FBI, I have my doubts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Olympic Gymnasts Reveal That Comey's Trump-Hating FBI Was OK With Child Rape

Top O’ the Briefing

From The Morning Briefing, by Writer Stephen Kruiser, 16 September 2021, 8:23 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

Happy Thursday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends.  You will always look ridiculous in a hoop skirt.

This is one of the rare times that I am leading off with something I wrote.  It’s necessary though, and I’m sure you will all agree with me.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has become an unhinged, unchecked state police service that needs to be reined in and overhauled.  In recent times, this was an opinion one found only on the right.

It should be a bipartisan issue now.

All the while it was crafting a hoax about Russian collusion that was designed to destroy the president of the United States, the FBI was deliberately covering for a serial rapist of little girls.

From CNN we have this story lede:

Olympic gymnasts McKayla Maroney and Simone Biles ripped the FBI and the Justice Department in Senate testimony Wednesday for how FBI agents mishandled abuse allegations brought against Larry Nassar and then made false statements in the fallout from the botched investigation.

Here is another extract from the CNN report:

The senators on Wednesday joined the gymnasts in questioning why the Justice Department chose not to prosecute the FBI officials in question.  "It's not only that the FBI failed to do its job, systematically, and repeatedly.  It is also the cover up, the cover up that occurred afterwards," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said.  "When FBI agents made material, false statements and deceptive omission referred by the Inspector General for criminal prosecution those referrals were declined, without explanation. without any public explanation at all."

Strangely, CNN does not name the lying FBI Agent, Mr Jay Abbott, although a subsequent CNN story does.

It is flat out corruption when the FBI goes after Retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn on a technicality for "lying to the FBI" but yet allows a lying FBI Agent to retire with no repercussions.♠  The fact that there were patterns of corruption at this time, not just the problem with the Dr Larry Nassar sexual abuse issues, is a blot on the Directorship of Mr James Comey.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, the FBI did fire a lower level agent, Mr Michael Langeman, but the corruption went higher, as the Senate testimony yesterday, and the DOJ IG Report, demonstrated.

What Did The Person In Charge Think?

For John, BLUF:  The idea that there was a uniform sense amongst all those demonstrating on Capitol Hill on 6 January strikes me as ludicrous.  Yet some want us to walk in that direction, in lockstep.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

FBI Cannot ‘Disclose the Cause of Death’ of Officer Brian Sicknick:  Director Wray

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Jack Phillips, 2 March 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

The FBI “cannot disclose the cause of death” of U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, after The New York Times and other news outlets either retracted or updated reports claiming he was killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher during the Capitol riots on Jan. 6.

FBI Director Christopher Wray responded to a question from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) during a Senate hearing on Tuesday about whether the agency has determined Sicknick’s cause of death.  Grassley noted “conflicting reports” about his cause of death and whether there is a homicide investigation.

“There is an ongoing investigation into his death,” Wray said, adding that “I certainly understand … and appreciate the keen interest in what happened to him.”

But despite Wray’s testimony, it’s still unclear whether the FBI does not know Sicknick’s cause of death or whether the agency simply will not disclose it.

It sounds to me like FBI Director Christopher Wray is being too clever by half.  It seems he won't disclose what he knows.  Is it something about FBI Directors?  Mr Wray reminds me somewhat of James Comey.

On the other hand, Director Wray was quick to attribute the overall fracus to "white nationalism":

Meanwhile, Wray described the Jan. 6 incident as “domestic terrorism” and claimed it coincided with the rise of white nationalism and extremism in the United States in recent years.

Frankly, I find the term "White Nationalism" offensive and a form of discrimination.  It seeks to catagorize a whole group of people on the basis of actions by a few, based on supposed skin color.  In other words, Mr Wray is playing to an audience.

That said, there were, I am sure, ignorant people on that day who thought that this was all about "race".  It was not.  The actions of a few obscured the more peaceful intent of the many.  Those few need to be condemned.  Then there are others, who thought it right to push around elected representatives.  They too were wrong.  They too need to be condemned for their actions that day.

Finally, there were enthusiastic citizens present.  After the doors were opened they poured through, hundred of them.  They need to be sat down and given a talk on situational awareness.  Help them see when things started to go wrong.  When they should have backed out, walked away.

And, finally, if any agents provocateurs were present they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Having said that, I know at least one responsile person who thinks the demonstrators should have been met by a wall of police with weapons drawn and ready to shoot the demonstrators if they did not disperse.  I think that would be a bad look and would have garnered sympathy for the demonstrators.  The real question is what was Speaker Pelosi thinking?  Ultimtely, she is responsible for the protection of the Capitol.

Regards  —  Cliff

Have We Lost Our Freedom?

For John, BLUF:  We think about free speech in terms of the Government taking it away from us, and while that is important, there is also our fellow citizens, in more informal ways, banding together to deny us our free speech, which seems to be happening today.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The media Stasi:  Glenn Greenwald slams culture of 'junior high hall-monitor tattling' among prominent 'woke' journalists that is like East German 'citizen surveillance'

Here is the sub-headline:

• The journalist shared his thoughts on what he calls 'authoritarian "reporting"'
• Greenwald points to New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz who falsely accused a tech investor of using the r-word during an online chat she was monitoring
• 'They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers...so settle on this penny-ante, trivial bulls***,' he writes
• Greenwald also namechecked CNN's Brian Stelter, Oliver Darcy, NBC's Ben Collins, Brandy Zadrozny and NYT's Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel

From The Daily Mail, by Reporter Lauren Fruen, 8 February 2021, 11:39 EST.

Here is the lede plus five:

Glenn Greenwald has slammed what he calls the 'junior high hall-monitor tattling' among the 'woke' media, dubbing it 'Stasi-like citizen surveillance'.

The journalist, part of a team that won a Pulitzer for reports about government surveillance programs based on leaks by Edward Snowden, shared his thoughts on what he calls 'authoritarian "reporting"' on Substack Sunday.

In it Greenwald points to New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz, who falsely accused a tech investor of using the word 'retarded' during an online chat she was monitoring.

Greenwald also namechecks CNN's Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, NBC's Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny and the Times' Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose and Sheera Frenkel, calling them 'hall-monitor reporters'.

He writes:  'A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance.

'They have insufficient talent or skill, and even less desire, to take on real power centers...so settle on this penny-ante, trivial bulls*** — tattling, hall monitoring, speech policing.'

And it goes on, at the link.

For those who don't reverberate with the term Stasi, it was the dreaded East German Secret Police, who monitored everything and everyone and worked to get lover to spy on love and children on parents.  Worse than the tattling on those seen on video walking through the Nation's Capitol on 6 January 2021.  Before computers, many, many file cabinets of "3x5" index cards (probably A7 size index card, it being Europe) and larger size papers and photographs.  The reunified German Government has engaged in a major effort to reclaim and open up the Stasi files.

A serious question is, is anyone playing Stasi in the United States.  There is the Press, of course. Then there are the revelations about spying♠ on Citizen Carter Page, which does not give me confidence.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Former FBI Director James Comey objects to calling it spying, but that is what it is, his sensitivities notwithstanding.

First Sentencing For Russiagate

For John, BLUF:  Yes, the DOJ has convictede a number of Trump supporters, but here is the first conviction of a person involved in smearing Donald J Trump and crew via Russiagate, and thereby distrupting the proper functioning of the US Government.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

FBI Lawyer Who Forged Email in Carter Page FISA Process Sentenced to Probation

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Ivan Pentchoukov, 29 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus four:

A federal judge on Jan. 29 sentenced former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith to 12 months of probation for forging an email that resulted in one of several major errors in the applications to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg described Clinesmith’s forgery as an “inappropriate shortcut.”  The judge concurred with the defense’s argument that the FBI attorney did not intend to lie when he added the words “not a source” to an email from a CIA liaison which described Page as having provided information to the agency.

Boasberg, who serves as one of the judges in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that approved the applications to surveil Page, said that Clinesmith’s forgery damages the reputation of the court.  The judge said he had no reason to disagree with the findings of the report by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, which found that Clinesmith’s actions were not motivated by his bias against President Donald Trump.

The judge also ordered Clinesmith to serve 400 hours of community service.

This is the first fruit of the Federal Prosecutor John Durham's investigation into the Federal Government's handling of information on then Candidate Donald Trump.  Outgoing US Attorney General William Barr appointed him a Special Council before stepping down.  Mr Durham's task is to investigate to determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was "lawful and appropriate".

As to the sentence, it seems appropriate, given that Mr Carter Page is suing the US Government (Department of Justice, FBI and Mr James Comey) for $75 million over his Civil Rights being violated.  I don't see filling up another jail slot with Mr Clinesmith.  That is just more Federal money down the drain.  And, the community service is a nice touch.

On the other hand, I thought maybe a FISA Court Judge, like U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, might want to extract a pound of flesh and send a serious message.  Kudos to him for resisting the temptation.  I hope this slap on the wrist, and professional embarrassment, is sufficient to send a signal to other Government lawyers.

But, at the end of the day I hope his testimony given in exchange for this light sentence will help convict others who violated the Civil Rights of American Citizens and who further blemshed the record of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Here is the PJ Media take on the sentencing.

Regards  —  Cliff

Extremism Missed

For John, BLUF:  Former FBI Director James Comey, who disgraced his office and his agency, wants to see his enemies "burned down," which is an unfortunate turn of phrase.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Incitement Or Free Speech?  Comey Calls For the Republican Party To Be “Burned Down”

From JONATHAN TURLEY, by Law Professor Jonathan Turley, 19 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

There is an interesting interview this week with former FBI Director James Comey.  He states that he now believes that the infamous alleged “pee tape” may be real and makes other surprising statements while pitching his new book.  One statement, however, stood out:  “The Republican party needs to be burned down … It’s just not a healthy political organization.”  Since the Republican National Committee was targeted with a pipe bomb in the recent riots, some could argue that this is incitement to arson or violence.  I would not.  I would call it free speech and hyperbole.  The question is where the line is drawn given the impeachment of Donald Trump based on his speech and the allegations that others who used such hyperbolic language are actually guilty of incitement.

As I have previously stated, I condemned Trump’s speech in a series of tweets while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots.  However, I opposed the use of a snap impeachment by the House and raised concerns over the framing of the article of impeachment as an “incitement to insurrection.”  Despite the chorus of legal experts insisting that the speech would constitute a strong case for criminal incitement (and the DC Attorney General said he may charge Trump), I believe such a prosecution would eventually collapse on free speech grounds if based solely on this speech and Trump’s other public statements.

Comey is not alone in the use of such rhetoric in today’s super-heated political environment.  We previously discussed how conservatives have pointed to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) calling for people to confront Republican leaders in restaurants; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) insisted during 2020’s violent protests that “there needs to be unrest in the streets,” while then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said “protesters should not let up” even as many protests were turning violent.  They can all legitimately argue that their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this is a standard fraught with subjectivity.

The question is whether Comey would be charged under this same logic if the RNC building was attacked again and actually burned down.  That would be obviously ridiculous.  However, where is the line drawn?  Free speech demands bright lines and those are being erased in our cancel culture from universities to the media to Congress.

And, remember, Professor Turley is not a Trump voter.

Amongst those mentioned above, I have particular scorn for former FBI Director James Comey, who wraps himself in self-righteousness while breaking the public trust under the guise of protecting the Republic.  He sanctions the violation of our Civil Rights and cuts political deals, while claiming to be a virtious Civil Servant.  He is a fraud and he bismirches the reputation of the organization he led.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Seemingly Never Ending Probe

For John, BLUF:  Leaking and smearing are as old as the Republic.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Barr tells Republicans Durham report won't be ready by election

From Axios, by Writer Alayna Treene, 9 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Attorney General Bill Barr has begun telling top Republicans that the Justice Department’s sweeping review into the origins of the Russia investigation will not be released before the election, a senior White House official and a congressional aide briefed on the conversations tell Axios.

Why it matters:  Republicans had long hoped the report, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, would be a bombshell containing revelations about what they allege were serious abuses by the Obama administration and intelligence community probing for connections between President Trump and Russia.

If it doesn't come out soon and President Trump loses in November, will it then ever come out?

This matters because we don't need forces behind the secene putting out false stories and suppressing information.  Today I read an article, " INSIDE JOB:  THE CHALLENGE OF FOREIGN ONLINE INFLUENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS" (War on the Rocks).  The author did point out that in the last 75 years the United Sttes has interfered in more foreign elections that has the Russia/Soviet Union combnation.  This was not a shock to me, but it should help others put election interference into perspective.  It means it is on the nation holding an election to protect itself.  nAlthough it is fair to say that elements within the target ntion were looking for our help.

It was interesting that the article goes on to say that information purloined from campaigns should not be allowed.  Specifically, the article talked about information taken from the Democratic National Committee by with the Russians or Wikileaks.  Unmentioned was the possibility that it was an inside job.  That someone working for the DNC spirited the information away on their own.  The reason this is important is that it is possible it wasn't foreign intervention at all, but, rather, an inside job.

The article then goes on to condemn this leaking of information from a campaign and talks about how The Washington Post is looking to prevent that kind of thing in the future.  Which raises the question as to what kind of leaks are acceptable to the Press?  Did The New York Times go too far in disclosing President Trump's tax returns?  Did the press go too far in being a conduit for FBI Director James Comey's leaks regarding Russiagate?  What is the acceptable limit?

In answer to the earlier question about the Durham Report coming out if President Trump loses, the answer is no, unless someone leaks it, and even then it depends upon to whom they leak it.

Regards  —  Cliff

Corruption from 2016

For John, BLUF:  This whole collection of items from the 2016 Election should have gone away several years ago, but it hasn't.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

FBI official on Mueller team said Flynn prosecution had 'get Trump' attitude, collusion probe was 'not there'

Here is the sub-headline:

FBI official William Barnett was assigned to lead the bureau's original investigation into Michael Flynn

From Fox News, by Reporter Brooke Singman, 25 September 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

An FBI official who served on Robert Mueller’s team said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he did not wish to pursue a Trump-Russia collusion investigation as it was “not there" and considered it to be a "dead end."

FBI agent William J. Barnett made the comments during an interview on Sept. 17 at the Justice Department, before Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeffrey Jensen, who was tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the case against Flynn. Jensen has joined U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team in his review of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Those comments have surfaced in new government documents.

Fox News reviewed Barnett’s FBI 302, which was filed by the U.S. government early Friday as part of the Flynn case.

Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the bureau’s original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name “Crossfire Razor,” which was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — the bureau’s code name for the original Trump-Russia probe.

In another thread someone wrote:

Oh, quit going on about acceptance of the 2016 result. Every has yielded to the result; the Dems just don’t like it. What do you care? He’s been doing everything a president is constitutionally able to do and more.

Here is my response:

I think it is the time lapse problem here.  If everyone had agreed after the Inauguration it would have been OK with me.  But, things continued after the Inauguration.  DOJ Career people seemed to just carry on.  Jim Comey was unable to walk away.  I wonder about the role of Sally Yates, or DNC Apparatchiks.  There were FBI guys who took out extra liability insurance.

Lawyer and Author Sidney Powell just got a “302” that indicates that even after the election they kept after the “Trump Team” in a less than professional way.  FBI Agent William Barnett talked of “Lack of integrity on the part of the Bob Mueller Team.”  Where is Inspector Lewis Erskine (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr) when you need him?

So, yes, I would like it to all go away.  I especially don’t want to see it reach into the Oval Office. That would blight the process for a long time.  But, the story keeps dripping out, drop by drop.  And, because the Judiciary wouldn’t let LTG Michael Flynn walk away they just keep it going.

In early this year we had an Impeachment on flimsy grounds, so Ms Pelosi hadn’t yet given up in the first part of this year.  Then Judge Emett Sullivan, a hero to me for his handling of the Ted Stevens case, stopped DOJ from dropping chargers against LTG Flynn.  I was very disappointed.

Now we are in the political silly season again and we are back to Trump being illegitimate.  Sure, he is President and gets to sign legislation and appoint Ambassadors, but the Dems have become cranky again.  Everything is off the table.  (Or is it Nothing is off the table?)  Please tell me Rep Gerry Nadler is not running again.

But, in closing, one wonders, in the back of the mind, if Judge Emmet Sullivan has keep the Michael Flynn thing going because he wants to smoke out these sub-rosa activities that tainted the “peaceful transfer of power”. Maybe he is a hero this time also.

Hat tip to News Reader Elizabeth MacDowell.

Regards  —  Cliff

J'accuse

For John, BLUF:  It is funny how bureaucracies, of any sort, once locked in, are unable to admit they made a mistake.  Even the Louisiana State Police are unable, all these years later, are unable to admit they are the ones who shot Senator Huey P Long.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Remember the Schiff memo vs. the Nunes memo?

From The New Neo, 11 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Remember back in the early days of 2018 when there was the clash of the dueling memos on Russiagate and the role of the FBI and the FISA court applications?  The Nunes memo was criticized by Democrats even before it was released, and afterwards Adam Schiff released his own memo that contested what Nunes had asserted.

And of course the MSM trashed Nunes (for example:  the memo is “a joke and a sham”) and lauded Schiff.  Now we have the Horowitz Report that represents an examination of some of the same facts that Nunes and Schiff were duking it out over, and Nunes is completely vindicated and Schiff should slink away in shame along with most of the MSM.

When I think of Russiagate it reminds me of l'affaire Dreyfus, with perhaps Rep David Nunes in the role of Journalist Émile Zola.

So what roles do Rep Adam Schiff and former FBI Director James Comey play?

Regards  —  Cliff

What Really Happened in 2016?

For John, BLUF:  As much as some may wish for (parts of) the 2016 Election to go away, it isn't.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

DOJ Response to Peter Strzok Opens a Whole Can of Whoop-Ass on Comey, McCabe and the Lovers

Opening a can of "Whoop-ass" is a colloquial term for saying one is asking for a beating.

From Doug Ross @ Journal, 1 December 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

After his firing, disgraced former FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok filed a complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) asserting that his proposed termination was unwarranted.

In a recently released response dated August 8, 2018, OPR assistant director Candice M. Will outlined all of the facts underpinning Strzok's termination.

I would like for this to all go away quietly, but it isn't going to happen.  Which is a good thing, since the lessons of FBI Director J Edgar Hoover's excesses seem to have not yet been learned.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Here Comes Hillary

For John, BLUF:  Mrs Clinton thinks she should have been the winner in 2016.  However, she was robbed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

IT’S HAPPENING:  Democratic Voters Are Ready for Hillary, Poll Finds

Here is the sub-headline:

She's tied for first place with Joe Biden in recent survey

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Mr Andrew Stiles, 4 November 2019.

Here is the lede:

Democratic primary voters are "Ready for Hillary," according to the results of a recent Harvard-Harris national poll which found that twice-failed presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton would tie for first place with Joe Biden if she were to join the underwhelming field of candidates vying to face Donald Trump in 2020.

A rematch might settle the controversy from 2016.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

James Comey to Move?

For John, BLUF:  Some Americans have not been able to recognize and accept the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, and it makes their political commentary somewhat cramped and misanthropic.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

COMEY ON TRUMP WINNING IN 2020:  I’LL BE AT ‘MY NEW HOME IN NEW ZEALAND’

Here is the sub-headline:

‘Our leaders cannot be people who lie all the time’

From Grabien News, by Reporter Tom Elliott, 26 October 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Mr Comey talks about lies, and that may well be an area where he has expertise.

As for this promise to move to New Zealand, by Mr Comey, I hope that this is not another one of those "Hollywood Promise", which holds much promise, but in the end is hot air.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trust Test

For John, BLUF:  Distrust between the President and the Intelligence Community goes back to before the election, and has not gotten better.  This article is from June and here in September it is still an atmosphere of distrust.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Only with Real Transparency Will the FBI Ever Be Trusted Again

From Pajama Media, by Roger L Simon, 16 June 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

When Donald Trump told George Stephanopoulos he (Donald) might listen to "oppo" research coming from a foreign source and that he might not tell the FBI about it, the mainstream media, as is so often the case, deliberately missed or misstated what he meant, went into one of their usual hissy fits, and attacked the president, even calling him treasonous.

Besides the obvious hypocrisy, pointed out with characteristic aplomb by Andrew McCarthy, something else, likely more important, was at play.

The media (and the Democrats, of course) deliberately missed the point because you would have to be seriously intellectually challenged not to get why Trump might have been hesitant or ambivalent about going to the FBI.  These days only a total dimwit would unquestioningly trust the supposed "world's greatest law enforcement agency."  The FBI is under a dark cloud.

The litany of personages who have recently left or been expelled from that organization is long and getting longer.  As is well known, it's under investigation for its practices during and before the Mueller probe, via the inspector general and recently-appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is famed for prosecuting FBI agents with ties to the Boston mob.  All this is being supervised by AG William Barr.

Significantly, Durham is also investigating the CIA and, it appears, the State Department.  President Trump has given Barr (and therefore presumably Durham) the ability to compel the agencies to reveal their secret documents and to make their personnel cooperate with investigators.

If the President can't trust the FBI, or the larger Intelligence Community, then who in DC can he trust?

My question is, how do we restore trust.  Did the recent DOJ IG Report On Mr James Comey make it worse or did it put us on a positive path?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Self-Righteous Prig

For John, BLUF:  Former FBI Director James Comey abused his authority to satisfy his personal goals, while hiding behind an aura of sanctimony.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

James Comey is proof the ‘deep state’ is something to fear

From The New York Post, by Opinion Writer David Harsanyi (a senior editor at The Federalist), 29 August 2019.

We are talking about disgraceful former FBI Director James Comey.  Here is a Tweet on the topic.

Benjamin Wittes @benjaminwittes · 5h
From famed @Comey apologist @matthewamiller

Matthew Miller @matthewamiller · 5h
This is perhaps the stupidest investigation the IG has ever done, and one of its dumber conclusions.  Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.  https://twitter.com/sgurman/status/1167080394891517952

Here is the article lede plus three:

For nearly three years now, those who promise to save us from the wicked clutches of President Donald Trump have bombarded America with lectures about the “rule of law.”  Yet, over and over again, these self-styled champions of justice feel free to disregard the law whenever it suits them.  The latest example is former FBI Director James Comey.

A new report by the Office of the Inspector General for the Justice Department found that Comey had written FBI memos, illicitly passed them on to a lawyer friend, who in turn leaked them to a friendly New York Times reporter who had been spreading the Russian conspiracy theory.

Why? Because Comey was interested in extracting revenge on the man who had fired him, Donald Trump.

Comey, the report found, had leaked “investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

What a jerk.  This is how we get a Junta.  Bluntly, OK maybe in Latin America, but very Unamerican.

Here is how the OpEd ends:

If you want to know why so many Americans believe there’s a “deep state” working against their interests, look no further than men like Comey.  We have growing evidence that senior officials in the FBI and CIA acted as partisan opponents of the duly elected president, abetting and inciting partisan investigations.

Americans will continue to lose trust in institutions, if leaders keep misappropriating power for political purposes.  Comey claimed he leaked his memos because they were of “incredible importance to the Nation, as a whole,” which is what everyone who has ever pursued arbitrary and capricious power says to rationalize their abuse.

I can only hope we realize how wrong this was.

Here is the Althouse Blog view.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Comey Spying on Trump

For John, BLUF:  It isn't good for the bureaucrats, including law enforcement, to be judging a president at the very beginning of an administration.  After all, the People did vote.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Evidence Comey Probed Trump, on the Sly

From Real Clear Investigations, by Mr Paul Sperry, 22 July 2019.

Here is the lede plus seven:

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.

In addition to adding notes of his meetings and phone calls with Trump to the official FBI case file, Comey had an agent inside the White House who reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to other officials familiar with the matter.

Although Comey took many actions on his own, he was not working in isolation.  One focus of Horowitz’s inquiry is the private Jan. 6, 2017, briefing Comey gave the president-elect in New York about material in the Democratic-commissioned dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.  Reports of that meeting were used days later by BuzzFeed, CNN and other outlets as a news hook for reporting on the dossier’s lascivious and unsubstantiated claims.

Comey’s meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump — a meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN.

In his memoir, the former FBI director denied having "a counterintelligence case file open" on Trump -- at least not in the "literal" sense.

In his recently published memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey denied having "a counterintelligence case file open on [Trump],” though he qualified the denial by adding this was true only in the “literal” sense.  He also twice denied investigating Trump, under oath, in congressional testimony.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the Trump-Russia probe as a columnist for National Review, said that just because the president’s name was not put on a file or a surveillance warrant does not mean the Comey FBI was not investigating him.  “They were hoping to surveil him incidentally, and they were trying to make a case on him,” McCarthy said.  “The real reason Comey did not want to repeat publicly the assurances he made to Trump privately is that these assurances were misleading.  The FBI strung Trump along, telling him he was not a suspect while structuring the investigation in accordance with the reality that Trump was the main subject."

But, former FBI counterintelligence agent and lawyer Mark Wauck said, the FBI lacked legal grounds to treat Trump as a suspect. “They had no probable cause against Trump himself for ‘collusion’ or espionage,” he said.  “They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found nothing.”

Standing back and seeing no FEC violations, one can't help but wonder if it wasn't just animus from the "Deep State".  Of course, the unwillingness of many Democrats to believe and accept the election results added to the problem.

And, we might ask how we would react if we came into a new job, under a cloud of suspicion and were not sure we Old trust the police investigators, who had been hiding things from us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ego v Humility

For John, BLUF:  This looks like people who abrogate to themselves the authority to do things for which they would condemn others.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

AG Barr is an Absolute BALLER

From The Ace of Spades, 31 May 2019.

At InstaPundit Mr Ed Driscoll declares this as the Quote of the Day.  This is from Attorney General William Barr being interviewed by CBS’s Jan Crawford:

I’m amused by people who make a living disclosing classified information including the names of intelligence operative wringing their hands about whether I can handle classified information….  Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good.  They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have.  They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else.  They can– in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives.  And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.

Would this include former FBI Director James Comey?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Backlash

For John, BLUF:  I just hope it doesn't turn into a literal Night of the Long Knives amongst the Democrats and Never Trumpets.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump-Russia's Turning, and the Knives Are Out

From Real Clear Investigations, by Reporter Eric Felten, 25 May 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Now that the Russia collusion allegations have evaporated, the long knives are out and the president’s antagonists are watching their backs.  They have moved from accusing President Trump of treason to pushing revisionist narratives that try to shift the blame for the debunked probe onto others.

This effort is expected to accelerate following Trump’s decision Thursday to empower Attorney General William Barr to declassify CIA, Pentagon, and Director of National Intelligence documents as necessary to access “information or intelligence that relates to the attorney general’s review” of the Russia probe.

In other words, he’s gaining the authority needed to investigate the investigators.

CIA sources immediately objected in the New York Times that assets’ lives would be at risk, stunting Langley’s ability to recruit. Perhaps.  But the argument is a bit shopworn, raising the question whether intelligence managers are looking to protect their agents and sources, or aiming to protect themselves.

There are a growing number of indicators that the leading players in the 2016 election drama are turning on one another, making a mad dash for the lifeboats to escape being dragged under with the political Titanic that is Christopher Steele and his dossier.  These are many of the same people who had been eager to exploit the dossier, that collection of memos paid for by the Clinton campaign and supposedly sourced from Russia.  Once treated like the Rosetta stone of collusion, the Steele documents now seem even to Trump antagonists more like the Howard Hughes diaries.

I liked this side comment from Law Professor Glenn Reynolds:

Ultimate conspiracy theory:  It was actually Trump who caused the Steele Dossier to be commissioned, as a poison pill that his Deep State adversaries would be unable to resist, ensuring their destruction and his eventual ascendancy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff