My December 2, 2019, post entitled Please Check Unreasonable Expectations at the Door stated the FISA abuse report prepared by the US Department of Justice Office of Inspector General would be released on December 9th.  It was.

Here is a link to the redacted FISA abuse report released today and formally entitled Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.   It is further cited as Report 20-012 of the Oversight and Review Division.

Reading the report’s Executive Summary may suffice for a general overview of the IG’s methodology, findings, and recommendations.  The entire report is 476 pages long.   I’d urge readers to at least read the Executive Summary for yourself rather than relying on any of the skews media reports and talk show commentaries.  I listened to a few radio skews broadcasts today and read a few of the online articles posted by seemingly credible skews media.  My opinion is that you will be better informed after reading some or all the report yourself. (more…)

On December 7, 2019, the Majority Staff of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives released a report entitled Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.  Here is a link to that report.

I presume that this report is supposed to guide the majority party members of the House Judiciary Committee when the Committee drafts the articles of impeachment to be presented to the entire House of Representatives for its consideration.

Note this particular report is provided to inform only House members and their staffs.    While the US Senate may adopt some or all of the House majority party’s report, the Senate is by no means bound by its information or recommendations.

The report is an indicator of what the articles of impeachment the House sends to the Senate will generally contain.  Because it is an accusatory document, it is necessarily biased in its content.

It will be helpful for us citizens if the Senate would produce a companion report which goes into some detail about the exact procedures, rules, and laws that guide the Senate in adjudicating each of the articles of impeachment.

In addition to the Congressional reports that help explain presidential impeachment, readers might find it helpful to read Attorney General William Barr’s Address to the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyer’s Convention Washington, DC presented on November 15, 2019.  Since separation of powers is going to be a key issue in the expected impeachment trial of President Trump, the AG’s explanation of presidential executive authority and limits was as informative as it was easily readable and entertaining.

On December 9, 2019, US Department of Justice (DoJ) Inspector General (IG), Michael Horowitz, is planning to release the long-awaited Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) report to the public.  The report is expected to be approximately 500 pages long.

In very broad terms, IG Horowitz was instructed to investigate alleged abuses of the FISA and its judicial component, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, by US DoJ employees.  It had been alleged that the FBI and other employees of the DoJ (including attorneys) had abused the FISA during their investigation into alleged irregularities associated with the 2016 presidential election.

The FISA report was not intended to be an all-encompassing investigation into all of the allegations of crimes and abuses of authority associated with the 2016 election.  However, because of the potential factual overlap between allegations, the FISA report may need to include information about some other unrelated matters in order to avoid leaving obvious factual gaps in the FISA fact reporting.

The point of the preceding blather is to encourage people to read the entire 500-page FISA report when it is made public to better understand that the alleged FISA abuses were part of a much larger investigation beyond the scope of the FISA report.  Relying on any of our skews media, whether print or electronic, to accurately and completely summarize the FISA report will be deceptively disappointing.  As seen in some of the reporting by Sulzberger’s Slimes at the New York Times, the skews media’s manipulative spin has apparently already begun.

The purpose of any DoJ IG investigtion is to provide the US Attorney General (AG) with accurate, timely investigative facts so the AG can identify and correct intentional and unintentional instances of fraud, waste, and abuse committed by employees of the DoJ.  Its purpose is to improve DoJ administration, not prosecute alleged crimes.   The FISA report will be an administrative report of information, not a prosecutorial brief in support of criminal complaints or grand jury indictments.

The DoJ IG is not a prosecutor.  If he believes a prosecutable crime has been committed, he can refer his beliefs to an appropriate US Attorney.  The decision to convene a grand jury or charge a crime (or not charge) will be made by a US Attorney or other DoJ attorney so empowered.  It will not be made by the DoJ IG.  However, the DoJ IG’s reports are prepared with considereation of evidentiary admissibility.

If readers of the DoJ IG’s FISA report are expected it to open the floodgates of federal criminal prosecutions, they’re likely to be disappointed.  Nevertheless, the FISA report has likely already been submitted without redactions to Connecticut US Attorney John Durham whom AG William Barr selected to investigate the origins of the special counsel’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and whether it was properly predicated.   The FISA report is likely to be rich in investigative leads that has and will save USA Durham’s team a great deal of time.

My hope is that the DoJ IG’s FISA report will be used as it was intended:  To identify the dismal failures of duty in the US DoJ, especially those failures or omissions that have for years been eroding the performance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Main Justice employees.  I also hope that it will be of immense assistance to USA Durham in preparing criminal prosecutions where and if warranted in DoJ and the FBI.

Once again, the great political cartoonist AF Branco has captured the essence of a political issue with graphic brevity and precision.

In this instance, he has caricatured the House Bullet Twins, Representative Adam “Hollow Point” Schiff and Speaker Nancy “Dum-Dum” d’Alesandro Pelosi, displaying their faux outrage at President Trump’s authorization to provide Turkey, Russia, and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) with a military deconfliction notice of the air traffic associated with the hit on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“Military Deconfliction” notices have been used regularly to help militarily adversarial forces avoid misinterpreting the intent of a military action.   In this instance, the deconfliction notice would likely have been limited to the expected flight paths of the US helicopters flying low, dark, and fast in and out of Barisha, Syria.

It is almost certain that whoever made the call on behalf of the US disclosed only enough information to reassure the Turks, the Russians, and the SDF that they were not the intended target of a US military action.  It may have included any potential alternate flight paths if they were forced by operational necessity.

As for Hollow-Point’s and Dum-Dum’s faux outrage that the President didn’t inform them before the recipients of the deconfliction notice, they did not as Congresscritters have a “need to know.”  They had no beneficial part to play in the operation.  Their being informed ahead of time could only result in the operation being compromised, not improved.

If information about the operation had leaked out, it would have compromised operational security and jeopardized the lives of all our military troops involved.   It could easily have escalated the conflict rather than prevent it.   “Friendly fire” by uninformed adversaries would have adversely affected the mission’s success.  By giving the notice, President Trump was giving US military counterparts from Russia, Turkey, and the SDF time to prevent friendly fire.

It seems likely that the Russians, Turks, and SDF probably figured out what the US’s mission was.  They would quickly have deduced that al-Baghdadi’s demise helps them by removing a major impediment to stabilizing the region while at the same time not appearing to be in cahoots with the US.

We’re still waiting to see and read the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report “… on potential surveillance abuses by intelligence officials during the 2016 Russia investigation.”  And waiting.  And waiting.  Fox News Network is reporting that the final report is still being declassified.

The report’s boundaries have shown some elasticity insofar as what material will and will not be investigated and included in the report.

One of the more intriguing questions that has been posed (though not necessarily addressed in the report) will be whether the United States Eye solicited one or more of the remaining four of the Five Eyes (FVEY)  countries (US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) to conduct signals intelligence (SIGINT) surveillances on US citizens involved in the presidential campaign of 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump.  The US cannot lawfully conduct or solicit surrogates to conduct such politically-motivated surveillances against US citizens.

If another Five Eye country was solicited by a US Intelligence Community member to collect and illegally pass the information to the Obama administration or campaign, the logical followup question would be, “Was President Obama aware of the illegal surveillances and did he in fact authorize them?”

I contend the answer to the followup question would have to be a resounding, “Yes!”

How can I be so sure?  Because there would be a good chance that a SIGINT agency head with a FVEY country receiving an obviously unlawful request from Brennan or Clapper would go running to his own head of government and say, “Mr. (or Madam) Prime Minister, a US intelligence community head just asked us to begin an electronic surveillance on the Trump presidential campaign and pass the information to him directly.  What do you want me to do?”  At that point, the PM would pick up the phone and call President Obama with a lot of very touchy questions about the request.  That would be an inquiry even President Obama would not want to receive unless he was not only aware of the DNI’s request but had also either explicitly or implicity approved it and already had some story fabricated to keep his own butt safe and sound in the Oval Office instead of federal prison.

Of course, Hillary Clinton was already measuring for drapes in the Oval Office.  It was a foregone conclusion that she would be the inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States in January 2017.  Had that happened, all of the corruption in the US Department of Justice, the FBI, the federal judiciary, and the State Department would have been swept under the rug stored in some obscure National Archives and Records Administration warehouse and sealed for 100 years.

President Trump’s victory and his determination to drain the swamp caught Obama, the Clinton Crime Family, and their numerous conspiring cronies off guard.  With a new President, an honest Attorney General, and a very competent US Attorney looking at the IG’s forthcoming report carefully, maybe the operative instruction to Obama et al should be, “Lawyer up!”

We can only hope…

Washington Examiner online opinion headline:

ABC News ‘slaughter in Syria’ footage appears to come from a Kentucky gun range

The print and electronic “news” media challenge how we, the great unwashed, can question their credibility when we read stories like this.

Don’t stop with the reporters.  Keep looking up the media food chain to editors, publishers, media owners, and above all, at the alleged journalism schools that teach and train tomorrow’s skewers of the news.

The US House of Representatives under the leadership (or something) of Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been making noises she hopes will mislead us into believing that the House has formally begun the action to impeach President Donald J. Trump.  She’s had considerable help with the misleading from the Democrat Party’s courtesans in the skews media.

Finally President Trump and Counsel to the President Pat Cipollone have heard enough of Pelosi’s and her cronies’ lies.  Even more importantly, the President and his counsel have recognized that Pelosi and Company have become completely committed to destroying the rule of law and to disenfranchising the voters who elected Donald J. Trump in November 2016.

So today, October 8, 2016, counsel Cipollone transmitted an eight-page letter to Pelosi and three of her Consigliere:  Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings.

Cipollone’s letter is a detailed explanation about why the President of the United States will be refusing to cooperate with the House’s unlawful efforts to deceive voters into believing the House is engaging in a lawful constitutonal process.

Cipollone’s letter should help clarify some of the procedural and legal issues the Pelosi Mob seeks to use to install a tyrannical government which could whimsically and corruptly  impeach and remove any and all elected officials including future presidents and federal judges.

President Trump and his legal counsel are right to refuse to be a party to Pelosi’s planned destruction of the separation of powers in our government.

For some months now there have been strong rumors that New York financier Jeffrey Epstein would be federally indicted and arrested on charges related to child sex trafficking going all the way back to the 1990’s.

It finally happened.

Epstein was indicted by a New York federal grand jury, however the sealed indictment was not unsealed until this weekend when Epstein was arrested by the feds on Saturday night at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey after he returned from another overseas trip.

This article appearing in today’s Washington Times online was written by Jeff Mordock.  It is headlined Jeffrey Epstein charged with operating sex trafficking ring, using underage girls to recruit.  Mordock’s article is a decent summary of what led up to Epstein’s indictment and Saturday night arrest.

There is an equally informative article in today’s Washington Examiner online.  It was written by Jerry Dunleavy and headlined Federal prosecutors charge Jeffrey Epstein with sex trafficking and conspiracy.

Skews media reports imply that because of his wealth and political connections, Epstein was able to essentially skate on the earlier Florida charges.  For example, see the May 13, 2016, Fox News article written by Malia Zimmerman and headlined Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender’s jet much more than previously known.

Neither the Palm Beach County Prosecuting Attorney in Florida nor the US Attorney in Florida had much interest in Epstein when the alleged crimes and evidence were fresh.  Epstein spread his considerable money around in Democrat circles and in throwing private parties for political, entertainment industry, and news media friends.   Epstein had enough influence that an incompetent or politically astute US Attorney or county prosecutor could find plenty of excuses to concoct a sweetheart plea deal.   The rationale for undercharging or over-bargaining is not limited to Florida’s political hacks.

In my opinion the sudden renewed interest in Epstein by the skews media and the US Attorney of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) has far less to do with the pursuit of justice on behalf of Epstein’s victims than in Epstein’s being acquainted with Donald J. Trump before he became President Donald J. Trump.   I suspect the ink wasn’t even dry on Epstein’s indictment by the SDNY before Epstein’s attorneys were working out plea bargain strategies for Epstein to “sing” or if necessary “compose” one story or several implicating Trump.

There is, however, already one smelly tie-in to President Trump’s Cabinet: The US Attorney  for the Southern District of Florida who arranged the sweetheart federal agreement to not prosecute Epstein federally on the child sex trafficking charges if he agreed to plead guilty to one reduced state charge was Rene Alexander Acosta, President Trump’s Secretary of Labor.   On April 27, 2017, Acosta was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 60-38. He was sworn in on April 28, 2017.  All 50 Republican US Senators vote to confirm Acosta.   (So much for due diligence in their duty to advise before consenting.)

Acosta is a piece of garbage the President does not need.  Acosta must resign.

Various skews media accounts of the Clinton connection to Epstein have implied or even stated that former President Clinton “signed off” on letters declining Secret Service protection on some trips Clinton took with Epstein.  The term the skews media used was Clinton “ditched” the Secret Service.

By federal statute, former presidents receive Secret Service protection for life or until they formally decline further protection.  Shortly after he resigned, former President Nixon signed off on a letter declining further Secret Service protection.    But the sign-off was permanent for Nixon.

In contrast with former President Nixon’s declination, the skews articles imply that former President Clinton was allowed to selectively and temporarily sign off so he could take some short-duration trips with Epstein or using Epstein’s aircraft.  Presumably the Secret Service protection resumed after Clinton’s return.

It is very difficult for me to accept that the Secret Service would go along with occasional sign-offs like these.   If there is a valid national security reason for former presidents to receive Secret Service protection, then it must be continuous and unbroken protection for the sake of national security.    There is little harm to the national security when a former president dies, but a former president who is subjected to forced interrogation or blackmail is still in a position to harm the national security.

No responsible Secret Service Director would accept temporary sign-offs like the ones the skews media suggest occurred in the Clinton-Epstein arrangement.  Neither should Congress appropriate any funding for Secret Service protection for former presidents or specified other “formers” who insist on only occasional protection (babysitting and chauffeur service).   Even for “formers,” effective protection is costly to US taxpayers.

In their best and most valiant efforts to imitate their idols at Tass, Pravda, Xinhua, CCTV, and People’s Daily, the American skews media first tried to deny that the US Department of Justice and its action arm, the FBI, had illegally sought and obtained FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign prior to the 2016 election.

Their denial proved to be yet another feeble deception by our intrepid “free press.” Once the denial proved futile, they schemed with the DoJ and some in the Intelligence Community to try and cover the illegal surveillance with the cloak of national security.  “It was a counterintelligence investigation,” they said.  “We did it to protect the our elections from the Russians,” they said as they directly targeted the Trump campaign.

Ostensibly, candidate Trump (now President Trump) was never the target of an official investigation.  Yet, the feds never bothered to tell candidate Trump they were spying on his campaign.

In particular, the feds studiously avoided disclosing to anyone that they had used a work of fiction (the Steele dossier) paid for by the Clinton and DNC campaign using a law firm cutout to make the payments to a foreign intelligence service agent (discredited British spy and FBI informant Christopher Steele).  Evidence suggests now that the Steele dossier was, in fact,  actually written and  provided by Russian disinfornmation intelligence operatives.  Steele may have just been the conduit/cutout to give the information the appearance of legitimacy.

Similarly, in applying for the initial FISA warrant and three renewals, the feds did not disclose to the FISA judges that the feds had first given the Steele dossier to the never-inquisitive skews media.  Predictably, the skews media printed what the feds wanted them to print, the salacious details in the Steele dossier.  In turn, the feds saved the skews articles and used them as supposedly independent verification of the Steele dossier in their applications to the FISA court.  Thus, our “free press” became complicit in the fraud committed by the feds against the FISA court.

Thankfully, not all of the “free press” are journalistic whores intent on committing acts of  journallatio on Swamp Dwellers.

A few very diligent and dedicated reporters (e.g., John Solomon, Sara A. Carter, Catherine Herridge, Sharyl Attkisson, Kimberley Strassel, Byron York, and Gregg Jarrett) have conducted themselves and performed their duties more professionally than nearly all the others who profess to be journalists.

Most recently, John Solomon and the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) have filed a Motion for Publication of Records with the FISA Court.  The motion seeks:

… rulings, orders and opinions issued by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Court finding any of the attorneys associated with the Carter Page FISA applications violated rules of the Court or rules governing professional conduct by attorneys.

It has been revealed that one of the more honorable members of the US Intelligence Community, Admiral Mike Rogers, the Director of NSA at the time, approached President Trump and walked him through how the FISA was being misued, possibly criminally, by the feds in their applications against Trump campaign workers.

Court motions tend to be boring reading, however Solomon’s and the SLF’s motion to the FISC is worth reading in order to better understand the gravity of the unlawful actions the feds took to try and prevent President Donald J. Trump from being elected.  Their actions have been continued by Robert Mueller for the past two years to provide ammunition to incite a misinformed public to rise up and demand President Trump resign or be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.

Here’s what I believe to be the most important take-away from this:  None of this abuse of intelligence and law enforcement assets to affect the outcome of a US presidential election would have been revealed if Hillary Clinton had been elected.  It would have been successfully covered up.  That means these assets would have likely been illegally used again and again against US citizens in violation of our Constitutional rights, federal civil rights.