18 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-17-18

  1. Another Friday news dump.


    “On Friday night the FBI released a heavily redacted two-page summary that former FBI Director James Comey used to brief then President-elect Donald Trump in January 2017 regarding the so-called Steele Dossier on Trump’s ties to Russia. I have embedded the document below via Scribd.

    Politico procured the document released Friday night in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney report on the document here. The timing of the document’s release on a Friday night indicates that the FBI does not want attention to be paid — so be sure to check it out.

    The heavy redactions make sure we won’t get much out of it in any event. There is just enough to make one’s blood boil. Everything related to the Steele Dossier opens a window onto the greatest political scandal in American history.

    Gerstein and Cheney tactfully note that “[t]he released portion of the synopsis is vague about who financed the project, referring to it as sponsored by ‘private clients.’” Yes, “private clients” is a term that does not quite capture the provenance of the dossier.

    They also quote the rest of what is left unredacted: “An FBI source … volunteered highly politically sensitive information … on Russian influence efforts aimed at the US presidential election. The source is an executive of a private business intelligence firm and a former employee of a friendly intelligence service who has been compensated for previous reporting over the past three years. The source maintains and collects information from a layered network of identified and unidentified subsources, some of which has been corroborated in the past. The source collected this information on behalf of private clients and was not compensated for it by the FBI.””



  2. HRW,

    Even NPR agrees with me. Narrative collapse.


    “The sentencing of General Michael Flynn could turn out to be the Waterloo of the Mueller Switch Project. The feds never could have convicted Flynn of perjury or lying to government officials–they don’t even have a transcript of what he said to the FBI! As a criminal case, it was always a non-starter. The Justice Department initially had no intention of prosecuting. But then, after Robert Mueller took over the case, Flynn was squeezed into a single guilty plea by the threat of personal bankruptcy. As Byron York asks, what changed?”

    Mueller’s team is now saying that General Flynn needn’t go to prison–the equivalent of “oops, never mind”–and it appears that Judge Emmet Sullivan may be on to Mueller. We will soon find out.

    Meanwhile, even NPR has noticed that the Democrats’ beloved Russia collusion conspiracy theory has fallen apart:

    Trump has been implicated in ordering a scheme to silence two women ahead of Election Day in 2016 about the alleged sexual relationships they had with him years before.

    That is a serious matter, or it might have been in other times, but this scheme is decidedly not a global conspiracy with a foreign power to steal the election.
    From what is visible today…the case is still Swiss cheese.

    NPR makes the obvious point that we and others have observed repeatedly: the absence of evidence of Russian collusion in Mueller’s attacks on General Flynn, Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, not to mention the continued absence of any charges whatsoever against Carter Page, who must be the most innocent man in America, plainly means that when it comes to collusion–the ostensible subject of his investigation–Mueller is shooting blanks. Say, Bob, remind me: what does Stormy Daniels have to do with your mission as Special Counsel?”


    The NPR piece…..



  3. Time to investigate the investigators.


    “Many in the mainstream media and on the left have been salivating since the Mueller memos were released last week. They believe that the information in the memos has brought them one step closer to achieving their ultimate goal(s), whereby President Trump is impeached and/or incarcerated. As they see it, information from various individuals is slowly trickling in and those on the left and their media sidekicks are predicting a very ominous future for the president. However, if the media and those on the left want to critique the information that is allegedly being disclosed, perhaps they should use the same lens and look at some of the allegations that have been made about the investigation and/or how it was conducted before rendering judgment.

    For example, Jerome Corsi recently filed a lawsuit against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. According to Fox News, Corsi filed a “criminal and ethics complaint” against Mueller’s team in which he accused investigators of trying to bully him into giving “false testimony” against the president. Pursuant to Corsi’s complaint, “they wanted him to demonstrate that he acted as a liaison between [Roger] Stone and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on one side and the Trump campaign on the other, regarding the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.” Corsi further alleged that Robert Mueller’s office threatened to charge him with making/providing a false statement unless he provided “false testimony” against Trump and others.

    In addition to Corsi’s allegations, former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who pled guilty to criminal charges, alleged that he was mistreated by agents and/or investigators during a 2017 interview which ultimately led to those charges. On Wednesday, Flynn appeared before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Flynn is expected to be sentenced this week). At the hearing, Flynn’s legal team made several concerning allegations:

    FBI agents in his case did not instruct Flynn that any false statements he made could constitute a crime and decided not to “confront” him directly about anything he said that contradicted their knowledge of his wiretapped communications with Kislyak.

    Earlier this week, Flynn’s legal team also made the allegation that the FBI had pushed him not to bring a lawyer to his interview with agents at the White House.

    As a result, Sullivan ordered Mueller to turn over all documents and memos related to Flynn’s questioning. This is a significant development.

    The allegations and/or claims made by these two men are serious and should be investigated. Together, if true, they begin to paint a picture of an investigation that is marred by deception, lies, and questionable conduct. Sadly, many prominent Democrats and their media mouthpieces are so obsessed with bringing down the president that they are willing to overlook these “trickles of information,” deeming them irrelevant and not newsworthy. In reality, these allegations are very important and should be given the same weight even if they don’t align with the Democrats’ stated goals and/or the media’s distorted narrative.”


  4. And speaking of the media and their distorted (and collapsing) narratives……

    HRW maybe you need more of Glen Beck’s white board and less of the leftist stuff you prefer.



    We have been writing for years about how the liberal press drives narratives that proceed from its own political preferences, and then reports on those narratives as though they were news. It has gotten to the point where what passes for news reporting is mostly spin and opinion, liberally laced with anonymous leaks. This article describes the process as it relates to reporting on Elizabeth Warren. What makes it entertaining is that it appears in Rolling Stone! Copious links are omitted:

    The headline in the New York Times reads: “Sanders and Warren Meet and Agree: They Both Are Probably Running.”
    The gist of the new Times piece is that the Warren and Sanders, if they do run, “will not enjoy an easy path to the nomination.” Both are described as having political vulnerabilities that will force them to face questions or “concerns.” (This is code for, “they’ll get beat up by the media.”)

    It’s way too early for this nonsense.

    We’re 23 months away from Election Day. … In December 2014, news that Jeb Bush would “actively explore” a run for president put “the onus on all the other GOP candidates to get their ducks in a row — in a hurry,” according to the Washington Post. Bush ended up with three delegates, beaten soundly by one of the last candidates to declare.

    When Donald Trump appeared on the board for British odds makers in early 2016, he was a 339-1 bet. George Clooney, meanwhile was a 53-1 bet heading into 2015.



  5. That Mueller as a straight shooter narrative?



    “To bring the anti-Trump frenzy together in an organized attack, a special counsel was needed to investigate whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to beat Clinton. Not just anyone would do. What was needed was someone who was a friend of an important witness, had a steely, gotcha temperament and would happily spend millions, use discredited tactics and thereby intervene fundamentally in the rightly focused conduct of the presidency for a year and a half.

    And so we come to Robert Mueller.

    A former director of the FBI, he had demonstrated his qualifications when some of its agents were in search of terrorists and acted without probable cause in collecting scads of personal data on private citizens. Keep your mouths shut, these folks were told, and Mueller informed Congress there had only been one or two such abuses when the real number was about 3,000. He held himself accountable.

    He also violated separation of powers by authorizing the search of a congressional office and refusing to return ill-gotten material despite urgings from congressional leaders and the attorney general.

    The Russian collusion may yet take center stage, but the latest, most threatening move in the Trump investigation is to let us all know that he served his campaign with hush money sent to two women who had served him sexually.

    The thing is, it can be a felony not to have reported the expenditures, although these sorts of errors are often pretty much ignored, as in something noted in a National Review article. The Obama 2008 campaign paid a relatively slight penalty for $2 million worth of transgressions.

    But restraint is hardly a Mueller mantra. Through the instrument of sentencing threats, critics say he may in effect have bullied or bribed officials into deals about what they say about Trump and friends. Constitutional experts such as Alan Dershowitz also point to how he has twisted client-attorney privilege in such a way that the only privilege belongs to those wearing a prosecutorial grin.”


    Same goes for the Comey’s an upstanding, totally trustworthy guy narrative……



    ““I probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it.” Those words this week from former FBI Director James Comey could well be chiseled in marble as his epitaph. He was explaining another violation of bureau policy during his tenure days after meeting behind closed doors with House members.

    What was shocking was not that Comey violated protocols or policies again but the reaction of the audience to his admission. In describing how he set up a critical meeting with Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump, the audience was audibly thrilled by his cleverness in keeping Flynn unrepresented by legal counsel and unaware of the true nature of the meeting. Scheduled to testify to House members again next week, Comey may find a less rapturous reception in Congress.

    In his interview in New York City, Nicole Wallace asked him, “It’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State Room. How did that happen?” The audience erupted when Comey said dryly, “I sent them. Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration … or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation for over the last two years. In both of those administrations there was process.” He revealed, “So if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there would be discussions and approvals and it would be there. I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”

    Just send a couple of guys over. One line could not more aptly capture Comey and his own professed view of “ethical leadership.” The interview confirmed what some of us have written about Comey for more than two years. The media consistently reinforced his image as a rules driven and principled public servant, often referring to him as an almost naive Eagle Scout. The Washington Post even ran the headline, “Boy Scout James Comey is no match for Donald Trump.” Yet, the history of Comey shows both an overriding interest in his own actions as well as a willingness to violate rules to achieve that interest. But his comments, including a call to the public to defeat Trump in a “landslide” in the next election, have stripped away any remaining pretense. The fact is, there often was more pretense than principle in his final years as director.

    Consider his conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former federal judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed that Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein further added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.”

    Then there was Comey’s response to being fired. He removed memos on his meetings with President Trump related to the Russia investigation, then leaked those to the media. The Justice Department rejected Comey’s claims that these were his memos, not FBI material. Some of the material was classified. He violated core FBI rules in removing the memos, and the man tasked to find leakers became a leaker as soon as it suited his own interests. He also undermined the investigation by revealing to Trump and others that the memos existed, information that investigators likely preferred to remain secret before they conducted key interviews.

    Then Comey published a book, a sharp departure from prior directors, that discussed the ongoing Russia investigation. He did not pause before rushing it to the shelves, revealing details of the investigation and various meetings while making a fortune for himself. Now Comey has again admitted to violating rules and protocols, by setting up Flynn. Ironically, Comey criticized Trump for breaking protocols in meeting with him alone and asking about an ongoing investigation. He was right in that criticism because there is a formal process for communications between the FBI and the White House. Yet, the same protocols go the other way. If the FBI seeks to interview White House officials in an investigation, they go through the Justice Department, which communicates with White House counsel to arrange the interview. He evaded both in ordering the move.”


  6. This one’s for Debra. 🙂


    “The Case For Making The GOP A Working-Class Party”

    In F.H. Buckley’s new book, ‘The Republican Workers Party,’ the professor and Trump speechwriter argues that the party needs to address inequality and make a persuasive case for nationalism based on liberty.”


    “Betrayal of the American Dream
    The first few chapters provide interesting insights into the inner workings of the Trump campaign. Buckley recounts his role with the Trump campaign as an occasional speechwriter and adviser, and he provides details of behind-the-scenes intrigue. According to Buckley’s account, the decision to fire Gov. Chris Christie, the head of the transition team, was actually made three months before the election – it just wasn’t made official until after the election, to avoid controversy. Buckley also detailed his efforts to get the Trump team to hire Michael Anton, author of the controversial essay “The Flight 93 Election,” as a member of the Trump administration’s national security team.

    The Republican Workers Party argues that Trump’s revolution gives Republicans the chance to reform a party that had lost touch with much of the country. If the Republican Party wants to succeed, Buckley believes that it must become the champion of the working class and focus on economic inequality. At first glance, this sounds like odd advice. After all, talk of class and inequality has long been a hallmark of progressives who want to tax the rich and redistribute the wealth. President Obama’s 2012 campaign sought to make income inequality the defining issue of the election.

    For decades, the Democratic Party understood itself as the party of the working class. Its candidates presented themselves as champions for the laborer against oppressive corporate interests, while the common caricature of Republicans portrayed them as the defenders of wealthy business interests, indifferent to the welfare of the poor and determined to protect of the existing social hierarchy.

    Buckley writes that he and Trump found themselves in agreement that “the fundamental political issue was the betrayal of the American Dream in a newly immobile country.” He observes that incomes for those in the bottom 50 percent grew only 21 percent between 1980 and 2014. In the same time span, incomes for the top income brackets doubled or tripled (top 10 percent and top 1 percent, respectively).

    Trump and Bernie Sanders both observed that ordinary Americans were being left behind by elite of both parties, but only Trump recognized the nature of the new aristocracy. Sanders blamed capitalism, but Trump realized that the left’s policies on economic regulation and unchecked immigration had restricted opportunity for many Americans.”


  7. I didn’t used to believe this was true. Ricky changed my mind.

    Victor Davis Hanson explains it…..


    “Against what or whom is the contemporary Western public pushing back?

    The French non-Parisians against new green taxes on already unaffordable gasoline? Broke southern European Union nations against the financial demands of German bankers? The Eastern Europeans against French and German open-border mandates?

    The British masses against both the EU and their own government that either cannot or will not follow the will of the people and implement Brexit? The American populists against outsourcing, offshoring, and illegal immigration?

    The common target of all these populist pushbacks is an administrative and cultural elite that shares a set of transnational and globalist values and harbors mostly contempt for the majority of their own Neanderthal citizens who are deemed hopelessly unwoken to environmental, racial, gender, and cultural inevitabilities.

    In a word, the Ivy League, Oxbridge, and the Sorbonne masters of the universe assume that the world is on a predetermined trajectory. We are to follow an arc of history bending toward state-managed social justice if you will—to end up as a sort of global Menlo Park, Malibu, Upper West Side, Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Schwabing, or Kensington. No wonder, it is their ethical duty of transnationals to goad the fated, but sometimes stalled, process along.

    Like Aristocrats of Old

    Voters in consensual societies are often assumed too ignorant of the world beyond their borders, too encumbered with traditional racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and nationalist prejudices, and too ill-informed to know what is good for them. No wonder that sometimes hoi polloi must either vote repeatedly until they get it right, or follow executive and judicial fiats issued from their betters on high. In the globalist mindset, Brexit passed not because it was felt to be good by a majority or even advantageous for the United Kingdom, but because racists, xenophobes, nativists, protectionists, and chauvinists deluded the clueless public into thinking a pre-EU, and more racist and sexist Britain was somehow superior.

    A postelection depressed Hillary Clinton had to travel all the way to Mumbai, India to find a more enlightened audience that would appreciate her insight that the ogre Trump had beat her because:

    If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle, places where Trump won. What that map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that own two-thirds of America’s Gross Domestic Product. I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are, whatever that problem is, I am going to solve it.

    The globalist elite is certainly transnational and is sickened by localism, traditionalism, and autonomy. Monsieur Macron shares much more in common with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Justin Trudeau than he does with rural Frenchmen. It is almost as if in 2019 our elites are emulating the interlocking aristocratic families of late 19th-century Europe, but instead of being common descendants of Queen Victoria they are the godchildren of Menlo Park, Brussels, Strasburg, Davos, and Wall Street.

    Donald Trump’s efforts to deregulate the U.S. economy, demand reciprocal trade with China, Mexico, or Germany, rout ISIS, open up federal lands for natural gas and oil exploration, build pipelines, lower taxes, and grow the economy at best are seen as misguided parochial boosterism and at worse the sort of selfish nationalism that ignores expert global and world-is-flat consensus. In either case, the common denominator is that the world community can ill afford another U.S. president who has not been stamped, vetted, or audited by an Ivy League law or business school, a prior Washington D.C. federal office, or Wall Street firm.

    Angela Merkel—who recently pronounced that nations must be “prepared to give up their sovereignty”—and her ilk are representations of the same sort of values as those of Hillary Clinton’s circle. Elites do not see their fellow citizens in exceptional terms of the affinities of a common language, shared history, or sovereign geography. Instead, they envision themselves as Socratic citizens of the world. They are an international siblinghood with common blue-chip educations, wealth, and long service in the administrative state. The anointed alone “see” and “grasp” what is really going on with the world, and therefore what really needs to be done right now, at all costs, regardless of the opposition from what Hillary wrote off as “all that red in the middle.””


  8. From “Tea Party”

    (Big League Politics) – In another demonstration of why it’s never a good idea to elect radical extremists to political office in the United States, Minnesota Congresswoman elect Ilhan Omar, who is a Somali Muslim immigrant, took to twitter to mock Vice President Mike Pence’s Christian faith.

    Mind you, this is the same woman who cheered when I was banned from Twitter for posting facts about her policies: female genital mutilation, and Sharia Law, both of which she supports.

    According to Twitter, you can’t post facts about Sharia Law, but if you’re a Muslim, you’re allowed to call for Jews to be exterminated, and you can say anything you want about Christians and Jews. Not only is Twitter actively enforcing Sharia law around the world, but Twitter is also giving a platform to jihadis and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Hamas, Linda Sarsour, and 9/11 co-conspirator Siraj Wahhaj, just to name a few.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Well–really disliked, but in our modern world, like means dislike or some such. Off to a tea party with Alice, the Mad Hatter and a few others.


  10. Livin’ in the Stone Age….. 🙄

    Or the Drama Queens were wrong again…….



    “A year after net neutrality’s demise, the Internet is faster”

    “They said we would be neanderthals by now, savages scraping ourselves with pieces of broken pottery every time our cat videos wouldn’t buffer. But the Internet apocalypse hasn’t happened.

    It has been remarkably unremarkable without net neutrality, one year after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai killed the Obama-era Internet rule that required service providers to treat each piece of content identically.

    “No big changes,” reads a Wired headline atop an article explaining that “broadband providers didn’t make any drastic new moves to block or cripple the delivery of content after the FCC’s order revoking its Obama-era net neutrality protections took effect.”

    Everything has been fine, in other words. Someone should check on the folks below, though. They didn’t just think that the Internet would go dark. They thought that corporations would conspire to create a digital fiefdom where access to information was throttled and people couldn’t communicate freely except by carrier pigeon.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Nevertheless, she persisted…….

    In being anti_Semitic……

    And now it’s all collapsing, as it should.


    “Statewide organizers operating under the Women’s March banner announced this week that they are dissolving their group in protest of national leaders’ association with speakers seen as anti-Semitic.

    The decision won’t affect plans for a third annual downtown march in Spokane next month, local organizers stressed Friday.

    Angie Beem, a Spokane Valley resident who served as board president of Women’s March Washington, announced the dissolution of the state group on Facebook on Thursday, citing the national organization’s ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Beem, who helped organize the march in Spokane in 2017 and made an unsuccessful bid for Spokane Valley City Council that fall, said in an interview Friday the decision to disband wasn’t easy.

    “It’s heartbreaking. Whenever you create something that literally changed your life, it’s really hard to walk away from it,” Beem said.

    Local organizers knew the state organization was considering disbanding after planned marches in January, said Lori Feagan, an organizer with Spokane Women’s March. But they were unaware a public announcement would be made this week, she said.

    “We are independent,” Feagan said. “We don’t have any financial backing (from) the state or national organization.”

    In November, the local group put out a statement denouncing anti-Semitism, transphobia and any groups supporting those prejudices.”


    “Beem said state organizers were not only uncomfortable with the national leaders’ ties to Farrakhan, whose group, the Nation of Islam, has been labeled as an anti-Semitic hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They’re also concerned about the national organizers’ finances and what Beem called a “fame-hungry” attitude.”


  12. Bad news for Democrats, NTers, and the press..

    Burying the lede.”


    “Des Moines Register Downplays Trump Polling Strength”

    “The Des Moines Register reported that a poll done by them, CNN, and Mediacom showed President Donald Trump has an 81% approval rating in Iowa, but some Republicans wouldn’t oppose challengers.

    The article mentions in passing the most important result: 67% of the respondents said they would choose Trump again.

    Here is what The Des Moines Register reported:

    A new Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows Trump has an 81 percent approval rating among registered Republicans in Iowa. Sixty-seven percent say they would definitely vote to re-elect Trump if the election were held today. Nineteen percent of Republicans say they would consider someone else, and 10 percent say they would definitely vote to elect someone else.

    Yet almost two-thirds — 63 percent — say Iowa should welcome challengers to Trump at the Republican Party of Iowa’s caucuses, scheduled for Feb. 3, 2020. The caucuses are held in schools, libraries, fire stations, church basements and a host of other places in all 99 Iowa counties.

    Poll respondent Nicole Clark, 31, of Indianola is a special education teacher in suburban Des Moines and a registered Republican. She said she definitely supports Trump’s re-election, but thinks challengers should be welcomed.

    “I am a conservative Christian, and I feel like he will stand up to some of the liberals’ moral agenda,” Clark remarked. “Yes, the liberal agenda is to take God out of everything.”

    I googled “Trump Iowa” and a few publications led off with the two-thirds of Iowans supporting a challenger to Trump.

    This is the challenger question:

    CNN buried the lede in its report on the poll. The results for Trump didn’t show up until the fourth paragraph:

    Overall, 67% of registered Republicans say they would definitely vote to re-elect Trump if the election were held today, 19% would consider someone else and just 10% of the state’s Republicans say they would definitely vote for someone else.

    That’s YUGE.”


  13. Darn that Trump, wiping phones and destroying evidence! Who does he think…. wait……

    Never mind, that was the FBI and DoJ “leadersip,” who also lied repeatedly about what was and wasn’t on there..

    More collapsed narratives.


    “IG Report: Strzok, Page iPhones Wiped Clean, Thousands of Texts Destroyed Before IG Could Review Them

    An FBI officer on Mueller’s team had reviewed Strzok’s iPhone and reported “No substantive texts, notes or reminders”


    “Additionally, the report reveals that thousands of text messages were ultimately recovered from both Strzok’s and Page’s Samsung Galaxy phones, messages that had previously been reported as “lost.” The content of the recovered messages has not yet been made public.

    Townhall reports:

    The OIG did not produce the content of the text messages in its report.

    “The OIG forensically recovered thousands of text messages from FBI mobile devices issued to Strzok and Page through its multiple extraction efforts. Approximately 9,311 text messages were recovered from Strzok’s S5 [Samsung],” the report states. “Approximately 10,760 text messages were recovered from Page’s S5.”

    The IG reports that these text messages had previously been “lost” from the Samsung phones due to an FBI ” collection tool failure.”

    Fox News reports:

    While the FBI maintains a system to wirelessly collect text messages sent to, or received by, FBI-issued mobile devices, the IG found that the system had failed systemically while Strzok and Page were texting.

    “Approximately 9,311 text messages were recovered from Strzok’s [phone] during the collection tool failure period,” the IG wrote. “Approximately 10,760 text messages were recovered from Page’s [phone] during the collection tool failure period.”

    The FBI reportedly switched to iPhones in response to this failure, so it’s not yet clear whether or not the FBI system of wirelessly collecting text messages sent to and from FBI-issued mobile devices contains the text messages deleted from the wiped Strzok and Page iPhones.

    The IG report itself indicates that there is no means of recording such messages by the FBI.

    During calendar year 2017, the FBI phased out use of the Samsung Gala.xy S5 devices by its employees and replaced them with Samsung Oala’Cy S7 devices because of software and other issues that prevented the data collection tool from reliably capturing text messages sent and received via FBI issued Samsung Galaxy SS mobile devices. According to FBl’s Information and Technology Branch, as of November 15, 2018, the data collection tool utilized by FBI was still not reliably collecting text messages from approximately IO percent of FBI issued mobile devices, which included Samsung S7s and subsequently issued S9s. By comparison, the estimated failure rate of the collection tool was 20 percent for the Samsung S5s.

    The 010 reviewed DOJ memoranda and FBI policy relating to retention of substantive electronic communications. These policies require individual employees to take steps to ensure preservation of such electronic communications relating to a criminal or civil investigation. The FBI policy informs its employees to contact the FBl’s Enterprise Security Operations Center (ESOC) if they need to access electronic communications that the individual has not preserved, such as text messages and email messages.

    According to FBI’s Office of General Counsel, ESOC has in place a process for the collection of text messages. However, the OIG determined that the FBI does not currently have a specific policy directive mandating that FBI, through ESOC or otherwise, collect text messages sent and received by FBI employees using their FBI issued mobile devices.”


  14. And also note, Mueller’s team has been implicated in destroying evidence as well. Time to declassify, release it, and for Trump to fire him.



    “The Supreme Court held long ago in Brady v. Maryland that the Constitution requires the prosecution, which holds all the cards in a criminal case, to give the defense all evidence favorable to the defendant, whether it impeaches a witness, mitigates punishment or shows his innocence. Indeed, the burden is on prosecutors to find anything in the possession of the government that is favorable to the defense.

    From the minute Judge Emmet G. Sullivan received the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, which will be decided on Tuesday, he ordered Mueller to provide the defense with all Brady material. Last week, Judge Sullivan specifically ordered Mueller to produce any FBI interview reports — called 302s — or memoranda relevant to the original interview of Gen. Flynn. Ironically, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley has been requesting the agents’ notes and 302s for two years. Did Mueller comply?

    Remarkably, but not surprisingly to those who have read my book, Mueller has thumbed his nose at Judge Sullivan’s order. He produced only a 302 created by his own squad seven months later from his own agent’s interview of none other than the infamous, fired-for-bias, disgraced, Trump-loathing, former Agent Peter Strzok — the guy who swore he’d “stop” President Trump and devised “an insurance policy” with his mistress Lisa Page and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in case Trump won the election. We are watching Mueller execute that insurance policy by the day.

    The evidence indicates Mueller has destroyed or is suppressing Brady material. There was an original 302 created within five days — by FBI protocol — of the Jan. 24, 2016 ambush interview of General Flynn by two agents — Strzok and Special Agent Joe Pientka. It is mentioned in the Strzok-Page text messages and on page four of the recrafted 302 Mueller filed. Comey read the original 302 before he was fired.

    It existed — as Grassley well knows. It was written by Agent Pientka, who also took extensive handwritten notes, whose name is redacted from Mueller’s filing, and who seems to have disappeared. Where are the original 302, his notes, and where is Agent Pientka? Grassley has been trying to get access to all three for almost two years.

    Mueller’s filing confirms that Agent Pientka was assigned to take notes of the interview. Judge Sullivan’s order encompasses the production of those notes. Where are they? Were they destroyed despite Grassley’s longstanding request and Judge Sullivan’s original Brady order? The failure to produce them is another Brady violation that warrants the dismissal of the charges against Flynn and warrants holding Mueller and his team in contempt of court.

    And no doubt Mueller is aware of other Brady material in the possession of the government. There are two important sets of information being withheld from the defense under the guise of classification.

    According to California Congressman Devin Nunes speaking on Laura Ingraham’s program last week, there is testimony from none other than former FBI Director James Comey himself, speaking before House committees, that is exculpatory of Flynn. Because Comey just confessed on national TV that he oh-so-cleverly, gleefully, and deliberately breached all protocols and any semblance of ethics to ensnare the new administration and Flynn in their carefully calculated perjury trap, there is every reason to declassify Comey’s testimony immediately. The public is entitled to see his duplicity.

    John Solomon reported, and Grassley has identified, information in the possession of the DIA that is exculpatory of Flynn. Apparently, the information remains classified — most likely to protect Comey from outrageous abuses of allowing private contractors to mine our intelligence gathering systems as far back as 2012 for nefarious reasons including unmasking and private profit — but that does not absolve Mueller of his obligation to produce it to the defense.

    At a minimum, the information must be given to Judge Sullivan under seal. In the alternative, the president should declassify this material immediately, because the government has a solemn legal obligation to produce at least the substance of all exculpatory information to the defendant. If there are true national security interests to be protected, a summary will suffice.”


  15. Twitter’s at it again.



    Move along…….


  16. Comey caught lying again…..


    Take your time. I’ll wait……..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.