Saturday, January 11, 2020

Russiagate: FBI Responds to FISA Court Wrist Rap

The usual load. Yesterday was the deadline for the FBI to respond to the FISA Court detailing how they would reform after all the problems listed in IG Horowitz' report. At Power Line, Scott Johnson reports, We now know: Mr. Wray regrets. He wasn't impressed with the response.
I declared the FISA Court order a farce last month, but I was mistaken. Farce lacks the foul stench of this particular bit of theater.
Likewise, sundance at CTH goes into more detail but is also unconvinced, FBI Director Chris Wray Responds to FISA Court – More Training, More Promises, No Mention of Accountability…, and does come away with a little irony:
Making the statements even more ironic; and almost appearing to rub salt into the psyche wounds they inflict; the FBI notification of corrective action was submitted to the FISA court and signed by FBI Counsel Dana Boente:

As head of the DOJ-NSD it was the same Dana Boente who signed the fraudulent FISA renewal in 2017…. Go figure.
Most, but not all of the bad actors are gone or neutralized, but a few remain, to wit, Julie Kelly at AmGreat, tells how Intelligence Community’s Inspector General Is the Link Between FISAgate and Impeachment. ICIG Michael Atkinson is a deeply suspicious character in all this. Now the House minority is looking hard at him. I look forward to his new gig at CNN.

At Da Fed, Margot Cleveland shows how the IG Report Documents How The FBI Hid Negative Information About Christopher Steele. Continuing his We Now Know theme, Scott Johnson at PL brings We Now Know, the Steele Dossier, Bacillus, which also has a great, but unembedable link to a great podcast by VDH.
In his January 7 NR column “The Steele Dossier bacillus,” Victor Davis Hanson assesses responsibility for the Russia hoax in the aftermath in light of the recent Department of Justice Inspector General report on the FBI’s FISA-related misconduct. The column is animated by the the same spirit I have brought to this series . . .
These are the top 10 items that have not been released to Gen Flynn and his lawyer. These documents would exonerate him. It is a disgrace that DOJ, the DC prosecutor, the FBI have not complied with the Flynn request for the Brady material. And yet, the prosecutor recommended a jail sentence for him. It is enough to make one very cynical about the Rule of Law. I hope you will do whatever you can to make sure people realize this is going on in America and do everything you can to get these documents released.

1. The original 302
2. The internal DOJ document dated January 30, 2017, that exonerates Flynn of being “an agent of Russia.”
3. Notes and documents of any kind dealing with any briefings that Mr. Flynn provided to DIA after he left the government.
4. Unredacted notes and 302s of both agents who interviewed Flynn on January 24.
5. The EC of SSA 1 interview of Flynn during the sample PDB where he went in to spy on Trump and Flynn.
6. The EC that started the whole investigation and drafts including anything written by Strzok that went into it.
7. The 1-A file—the whole audit trail of the Flynn 302 process.
8. The unredacted Strzok-Page text messages in their entirety–other than purely personal.
9. Unredacted McCabe memo.
10. Unredacted 302s of interviews of Strzok and SSA1 and raw notes.

These are all crucial.
I just wish some of the acronyms were explained.

Politico admits, Journalist (Sheryl Attkisson) seeks to revive litigation over alleged surveillance by feds
A TV journalist known for against-the-grain reporting is unleashing a new flurry of litigation on Friday alleging she was subjected to illegal surveillance by U.S. officials while covering Obama administration controversies such as the Benghazi attack and Operation Fast and Furious nearly a decade ago.

Now, Sharyl Attkisson says an informant has acknowledged a role in the snooping. The journalist and her attorneys believe that development may be enough to allow her to restart the litigation and demand answers from government officials.
"Against the grain"? Is that a euphemism for fails to support the liberal consensus?

Forget it Jake, it New York, Da Hill New York City Bar Association asks Congress to investigate Barr conduct
Among the examples cited by the bar association was an October speech at the University of Notre Dame, posted on the Justice Department website, in which the attorney general said “the founding generation … believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man” and that “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.”

Other examples cited in the letter include a speech Barr gave at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention in November, when he allegedly “vilified progressives,” and an interview last month where he “rejected the inspector general’s findings, asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the FBI’s actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion.”
And those are just his good qualities!

Via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 01.10.20 (Morning Edition), Da Tech Guy thinks (hopes?)  Hunter Biden May Hold The Fate Of The Democratic Party In His Hands. Althouse, "I said that we have to have 'Where's Hunter?' as a witness. They said what do you mean 'Where's Hunter?' I said that's his first name. I have now made his first name 'Where's?' Where's Hunter?" Said Trump last night at his rally in Cleveland. A commenter:
I know this has been discussed a lot in earlier posts, but I want to remind everyone that the reason for calling the Bidens as witnesses in impeachment has nothing to do with embarrassing them, or the Democrats, or making the argument that people other than Trump are bad actors. The reason for calling the Bidens as witnesses in an impeachment trial is to investigate the the question of whether or not there was a legitimate policy rationale for Trump to offer a quid-pro-quo to a foreign government to persuade the foreign government to take an action that would benefit Trump politically. If there is (was) no legitimate policy rationale then what Trump did was almost certain impeachable, and for anyone except the crazies, indefensible. But the easy clear defense is that Trump was pursuing a legitimate policy rationale -- to seek assistance in an investigation of corruption and misuse of funds in the administration of US foreign aid. Testimony from the Bidens would provide information about the prima facie case that there was such corruption and misuse of funds. So, to follow this line of defense: first call constitutional law scholars (including those who testified before the House committees) and ask them whether or not it is an impeachable offense for a president to offer a quid-pro-quo to a foreign leader to persuade the foreign leader to take an action or make an announcement that is helpful politically for the President, regardless of whether the President is pursuing a legitimate policy objective. If the experts say "yes" (which I doubt any would) ask if Truman's offering to stop bombing in return for Japanese surrender was impeachable (if anyone answers yes to this, he is just exposing himself as stupid.) So the experts will agree that what Trump did was not impeachable if he was pursuing a legitimate policy objective. That testimony then provides a basis for opening up the Biden question.
On the Shampeachment front, Capt. Ed at Hot reports Breaking News Pelosi Caves, Tells House Dems That She’ll Transmit Articles Of Impeachment Next Week. Probably Tuesday after the Democratic debate, proving once and for all, as if we needed any more proof, that the impeachment, and the delay are solely partisan political ploys. Ace, "Nancy Pelosi Unconditionally Surrenders on Impeachment"
Headline from streiff.

She just announced (at noon) that she'll hold a vote to appoint impeachment managers next week.

And then we'll have to pay attention to Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney, as the Three Cu**ateers curry favor with the liberal media talking up their willingness, nay, eagerness to betray their conservative voters.

But we'll only have to pay attention to their sage musing for a couple of weeks, then we can go back to thinking of them as bedbugs in need of fumigation.
Sundance, Speaker Pelosi Instructs Chairman Nadler to Appoint Impeachment Managers Next Week… "Amid mounting pressure, and considerable laughs in her general direction, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has announced her intention to appoint impeachment managers next week and release the impeachment articles to the Senate..."

Paul Mirengoff at PL speculates about Why did Pelosi hold up the impeachment articles?
Why did Pelosi make such a dumb play? I suspect she deluded herself into thinking it might work because, being obsessively power hungry, she failed to distinguish between her actual power and the power she covets.
It's kind of like the joke about how the asshole proves it's boss of the body. At RCP, David Harsanyi calls it Pelosi's Embarrassing Impeachment Blunder, and brings us word that she may have gotten the idea from Watergate's John Dean. At Premium PJ Media, VodkaPundit speculates that Nancy Pelosi Might Be Killing the Dems' White House Chances. I think that's optimistic; it assumes people are really paying attention. At AmSpec, David Catron writes of Nancy Pelosi’s Delusions of Grandeur
Madam Speaker is a greater threat to democracy than the man she impeached while WaFreeBee reports that Dems are in Disarray Over Pelosi’s Impeachment Strategy

Susan Jones at CNS News reports McConnell: Dems Can't Trap Us Into 'Unending Groundhog Day of Impeachment Without Resolution'  and Tristan Justice at DaFed Mitch McConnell Signs Onto GOP Proposal To Dismiss Impeachment Trial. Nuke the bastards! Paul Goldberg at News Thud sends, VIDEO: McCarthy Blasts Pelosi’s Impeachment Strategy “She’s Already Failed”

From Da Caller, Rudi writes The Supreme Court Should Step In To Rule This Impeachment Unconstitutional. Not gonna happen, and I disagree, the court should stay out of Legislative Branch matters.

At PL, John Hinderacker looks On To the Senate.
Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, is playing his cards close to his vest. Reportedly the Senate process will begin, like the Clinton impeachment of 1999, with both sides presenting their cases, followed by debate among senators. Only then would a decision be made as to whether and how to call witnesses. My hope is that things never get that far. There is nothing any witness can say about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine that would raise plausible grounds for impeachment. We know everything we need to know by reading the transcripts of the president’s two conversations with President Zelensky.
But, as AllahPundit reports, Susan Collins: I’m In Talks With A “Small Group” Of Fellow Republicans About Calling New Witnesses At Trump’s Trial. But is it too small?

No comments:

Post a Comment