IG Horowitz’s report has come out
As far as I can see (I haven’t read it; it’s very long), the gist is as expected:
The IG found justification to investigate the Russia investigation and did not find any “intentional misconduct or political bias.” However, the investigators discovered many “significant” errors concerning the FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
The IG report stated the investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek” the first FISA authority on Page.
Yet the report says the team “found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against” Page described in Christopher Steele’s dossier.
Horowitz provided the “seven significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the first application…
Unless the FBI authorities were stupid enough to write in an email or memo “I am doing this because I hate Donald Trump and for no other reason,” there is no way that Horowitz’s team could have found “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” caused the chain of events. So that’s the sort of thing that can almost never be proven; it’s hard to imagine a set of circumstances under which such evidence could be found.
But that such bias existed we know full well from the Strzok and Page emails as well as the actual politics of Comey et al. And that the FISA application and the entire Crossfire Hurricane probe was loaded with irregularities and “errors” is also known and detailed in the Horowitz Report. One can infer that the bias led to the irregularities, but one can’t prove it.
The seven “inaccuracies and omissions” can be found at the link as well. In addition, there were ten “additional significant errors” in the renewal applications.
The Horowitz Report seems to go for the “fool” explanation in the old “knave vs. fool” question. Or rather, it goes for the “we can’t prove they are knaves but we can prove they are fools if they are not knaves” explanation, which is a bit more complex. I say “knaves and fools.”
There’s further reaction at Mark Meadows’ Twitter account. For example:
Wow… page 341. IG says FBI used an Aug. 2016 'defensive briefing' with the Trump campaign as an "opportunity to gather potentially relevant investigative information” about Michael Flynn
They used defensive briefings for their investigation into the Trump campaign
Wow
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019
You won't see this in headlines, because it proves EXACTLY what we've been saying.
FBI used knowingly false and dubious information in a FISA as an excuse to surveil American citizens in the Trump campaign. And kept using the same bad info in renewals!
Stunning abuse of power. https://t.co/lM2zdDONVI
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019
BREAKING: IG report officially released. It reveals FBI "fell far short" in vetting accuracy of FISA applications, knowingly withheld exculpatory information, used 'defensive briefings' to secretly asses the Trump campaign, used known illegitimate sources, and more.
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 9, 2019
[ADDENDUM: More here. And here’s a link to Durham’s official statement.]
I really don’t understand why the law enforcement community can’t see the political fallout from this kind of whitewash, but they’ll realize it the next time the Left is coming at them for something and they’re surprised when some on the Right stop automatically jumping to their defense.
Mike
One wonders what it would take for Mr Horowitz to conclude it was more than just a bunch of unexplained errrors.
Oh well, it’s just a bunch of unexplained errors that resulted in our own law enforcement spying on a presidential candidate. And nailing Flynn on process cimes, and bankrupting him. Etc.
Whoopsie! Our bad.
I don’t think DC insiders fully appreciate how pissed off this makes people like me, and how fully and completely they are cementing their reputation for being “actively on the other side” from normal people who work for a living and believe the rule of law still means anything at all.
This is how you get more Trump. His “drain the swamp” theme has been proven beyond all doubt, right before our eyes in real time.
Jeff Brokaw:
It would take proof of the type I described in the post: if “the FBI authorities were stupid enough to write in an email or memo ‘I am doing this because I hate Donald Trump and for no other reason’.”
This will never happen. And short of that, IGs will (and really must) be careful not to conclude things not in evidence. Bias influencing the probe can can seem highly likely, and highly possible, but remains unproven because it almost cannot be proven.
In addition, these are FBI people. Stupid as some of them sometimes appear to be, they are well aware that they have to hide their politics in communications they commit to paper or in electronic records. That Strzok and Page failed to hide their politics in the texts and emails they exchanged as lovers (because they thought their emails would never become public) was careless of them; they should have known better and covered their tracks better. But even then, they knew that they could just deny that their bias affected their decisions, and they knew it would be exceptionally hard (well-nigh impossible, actually) to prove a direct link.
Neo said “One can infer that the bias led to the irregularities, but one can’t prove it,” which is correct. Bias is a state of mind.
In his report on “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment” released a few days ago, Nadler said (pg 6) that impeachment can be based, not just upon Trump’s conduct, but upon his state of mind:
“The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.” (Emphasis supplied.)
So, if you’re a Republican, prima facie, you have a criminal state of mind, but if you’re a Democrat, you’re pure as the driven snow.
p.s. I’m reading the Nadler report. It’s appalling, from both an historical and a legal perspective.
CapnRusty:
Yes.
State of mind is very very very difficult to prove. As I said, you can prove a certain bias (against Trump, in this case). You can prove certain actions (a whole bunch of unforced “errors” that all go in the direction of hurting Trump). But how to prove a direct connection? The evidence strongly implies it. But what is the standard of proof? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? What type of evidence is necessary?
You must apply the same standard whether the president is a Republican or Democrat, by the way – what Dershowitz calls the “shoe on the other foot” test. Most people will refuse to do that, or be unable (or unwilling) to see that they’re not doing it.
It is the classic excuse …
“Mistakes were made”
Looking forward to Horowitz’s response to Senate questions on Wednesday.
He and we know that the DOJ’s activities in 2016 were corrupt. It’s up to Lindsay Graham and company to hold his feet to the fire. It remains to be seen if they have the guts to do so.
Thanks, CapnRusty and Neo. What is striking here is that Democrats in the House are preparing to impeach Trump based upon what they think his intentions in certain actions were, not upon any evidence at all that those were actually his intentions.
Hillary Clinton skated in the email scandal because Comey and the establishment said they couldn’t find any wrong intent, in spite of the fact that the actions she took were clearly in violation of security statutes.
For several looong years now, the incredibly disappointing Lindsay Graham has been very dramatically and in practically every TV appearance–and they have been legion–promising to “get to the bottom of this,” to call this or that person before his Judiciary Committee to account for their actions.
Yet, somehow, he never manages to do so.
There are all sorts of witnesses he could now call who could very likely provide key insights into this whole coup attempt.
Yet, from what he has recently said, he intends to call not a one.
I wonder what it might be that is so powerful that it has been preventing Senator Graham from “getting to the bottom of this”?
The Horowitz Report was supposed to be the warm-up. We were warned not to expect indictments.
Let’s hope the upcoming reports are more … robust.
Kate:
The IG reports on the actions of Democrats stop short of imputing what seems like rather obvious intent to them, which has the effect of encouraging the behavior. Whereas the House Democrats have no such reluctance to imagine they can read Trump’s mind and impeach him (although even if their mind-reading were correct, by the way, it would STILL be insufficient grounds for impeachment).
What’s more, SCOTUS pulled the same terrible mind-reading trick in the Muslim travel ban case. I wrote about it at the time here.
Reading minds is not a good way to make legal decisions. And yet sometimes we agree with the results and sometimes we don’t.
Reading minds is not a good way to make legal decisions. And yet sometimes we agree with the results and sometimes we don’t.
neo: But this is Critical Thinking 101 and lawyers ought to have had that beaten into their heads by law professors. And yet we keep seeing and reading lawyers, even prominent ones, even Supreme Court justices, making 101 mistakes.
I just don’t get it.
Unless one assumes Will-to-Power as the real motivation for law students and law professors with reason as a mere prop credential for their authority, as the PoMos tell us, therefore their power.
There is so much to chew on here.
1. Any IG’s investigation is going to be a whitewash, for the reasons cited by neo. 2. Make no mistake about it: the government and the FBI specifically have reverted to pre-Watergate behaviors and half the country doesn’t care. They are keeping us safe, right? An honest person doesn’t have anything to worry about, right? Barr, Neo, me, and many others thought the post- Watergate reforms meant something. They don’t.
3. The Durham investigation is going to run into the same issues. People did bad things, but how do we prove corrupt intent?
4. Was this about spying on Trump or was it about messing him up? It wss about messing him up and it has largely worked. The problem is that no money changed hands, so DoJ/FBI types sat we were protecting the republic.
5. If Flynn had not pleaded guilty, the case would already been dismissed. If Manafort had paid his taxes he would be a free man. The Logan Act/Foreign Agent. Laws were used to squeeze him bu others did worse.
6. No senior Obama officials are going to jail, and prosecutions, if any, will be few and select.
6. Like Jeff Brocaw, I am outraged. But notie has been served: Watergate is over.
Good job, Obama. OK boomers.
From comments so far from those who are reading/analyzing the Report, its gist seems to be, “we can’t read minds, but we presume that everyone’s motives were pure, all investigated were living up to their Oaths of Office, and there was no criminal “intent,” nonetheless–too bad, so sad–“mistakes were made.””
Yeah, right.
Reminds me of Comey’s Press Conference, where he laid out a long list of offenses, and then deliberately misread the law to say that–despite that litany–Hillary had committed no indictable offenses, because she lacked the criminal “intent” to do so that Comey said the law required as an “element of the crime” to make her conduct criminal.
This, despite the fact that nowhere in the applicable statutes is “intent” a required element necessary for indictment, merely conduct; not “thoughts, not “motives,” not “intent”–Hillary’s actions alone were sufficient for indictment.
This Report appears to be just one gigantic disgust with, and contempt for government, and distrust of the Law generator.
Pretty undeniable proof that the “fix is in,” and that–despite what he might have been taught or think–the average person on the street can no longer count on our Federal legal system to protect him, or to identify and punish the guilty.
Fortunately, both US attorney Durham and US Attorney General Barr have issued statements strongly disagreeing with the conclusions of the IG’s report with respect to whether the “predicate” of the Russian investigation was sufficient. With the two guys who have the power to indict not on board with this, Democrats and current and former FBI and DOJ personnel have no reason to breathe a sigh of relief yet.
Sorry about typos. Darn iphone.
Does anyone know if there is a statute of limitations in Hillary’s email security violations? I’m not suggesting they go there at this point, I’m just curious.
No indictments — little real swamp draining.
A few of the worst critters get replaced by others just as bad, the system is not drained.
Everybody who wants honest cops should want the crooked cops, and the politically motivated cops, to be booted, at least.
I think there should be a hundred indictments, and thousands being fired. I understand there have been dozens of re-assignments, and a few resignations. Barely better than nothing.
Graham remains more weeny than winner.
Durham disagrees with some of the IG report, I see in some headline, will wait for more info. Durham could become a Real Hero with lots of indictments.
If the Reps retake the House as Trump gets re-elected next year, I’ll be strongly hoping and slightly expecting more real swamp draining.
Thank God for Barr.
Until I see actual indictments, aggressively pursued trials, and actual convictions and punishments, all this is so far is just “pissing in the wind.”
huxley:
I wrote a draft a while back for a post (as yet unfinished and published) on that topic. The short version goes like this: lawyers are taught to be able to argue as convincingly as possible for any side of an issue. That is part of their role in the adversary system, and it is an important skill to have.
They also have personal opinions on topics (including of course politics). Like other people, those opinions are often based on emotion, including emotion of which they aren’t aware and which they don’t think influences their opinions. That all comes together, along with the ability to be convincing on either side of an argument, and it means that they can marshal those debating skills to reinforce their preferred side of the argument and to convince themselves that they are being objective. Many people fall prey to it, including the most skillful lawyers.
Dershowitz is somewhat unique in that he is a skillful lawyer who is able to go against his own political preference when discussing the law and how it should apply. That ought to be the standard all follow but it is not. His personal political opinions are based on a lot of other things, I suspect. But I bet he could explain fairly articulately why he votes as he does.
I try to have political opinions based on objective reasoning rather than emotion. But I bet Dershowitz thinks he does the same.
Kate:
I suspect there is a statute of limitations regarding Hillary’s criminal violations of statutes regarding confidentiality. However, generally speaking, statutes of limitation can be “tolled” (suspended) when the potential defendant fraudulently conceals the existence of the crime.
Snow on Pine… “all this is so far is just ‘pissing in the wind.'”
Yep…and it keeps blowing in our direction…and I think we’ve been assured it’s rain.
Show me some indictments and some summary judgments and some of those traitors in orange jumpsuits & shackles…Then I’ll get excited.
I used to read Neo and the site almost daily until a few years ago, when the awfulness of the 2016 election turned me off. I was horrified by the willingness of supposed conservatives to defend Trump – a man who is manifestly unfit for high office – and the vitriol the true believers reserved for conservative opponents of his candidacy.
I’ve checked into this site a few times over the past few years and have been saddened to see what’s been happening to the Republican Party and the Right. The party of Lincoln, Coolidge, and Reagan has become the party of Trump, Meadows, and Gaetz, and I know that the former would not recognize the shell of the party that exists today. I’m certain they would lament the destruction of conservatism by its adherents.
I’m not complaining. In fact, I’ve almost become numb to the things that Republicans and the members of the new Right have said and done. The screeching about the Clintons, the whataboutism that informs their every defense of the president, the gleeful talk about “owning the libs”… all of this is proof of their moral and political bankruptcy. The new Right has nothing to offer, nothing to stand behind, none of the brilliance and eloquence that defined its predecessor. To ridicule such a thing would be pointless, even laughable.
I don’t expect any agreement from the folks here, but I hope you keep in mind that there are others – the “Remnant” according to Jonah Goldberg – who feel as I do. Maybe conservatism will revive itself in the future. Maybe Republicans will learn from their mistakes. Maybe the members of the new Right will recognize that blood and soil nationalism – the source of so much evil and carnage in world history – will doom us. I hope so.
Neo: understood. Of course no lawyer who covers their tracks for a living, and is an expert at setting traps for innocent people like Mike Flynn, is ever going to reveal their true motives; that is the obvious point of doing things the way they do them.
They’re not stupid, just evil. And if a swamp deller like Comey or Rosenstein was still AG instead of a supposed straight shooter like Barr, this whole thing would go up in a puff of smoke now. That’s not very reassuring.
The idea that most commenters here support “blood and soil nationalism” is both false and offensive.
Sen Lindsey Graham on DoJIG Report (YouTube 3:19)
“a man who is manifestly unfit for high office”
?
That’s not just unsupported, it’s what I would call manifestly nuts.
Brit Hume, on Fox News now, says the seventeen specific instances of misconduct in the report, and the general tenor of the report, are stronger than he’s ever seen in such a report. His conclusion was, stay tuned.
“The idea that most commenters here support “blood and soil nationalism” is both false and offensive.”
I’m not sure I understand what it means, because it sounds like a good thing…can someone please explain – what it _is_ and why it’s a bad thing?
“Trump… a man who is manifestly unfit for high office”
Why do you think so?
It’s translated from the original German, i.e. it’s nazism, SueK.
“blood and soil nationalism”
The People and our Posterity, blood, mother and father, for purposes of “natural born”, as parties to the social contract, and to remove ambiguity. But also naturalization, through assimilation (e.g. oath) and integration (e.g. productivity). Immigration, not immigration reform. Unplanned parenthood, not wicked solutions.
Just begin reading the report beginning at page 186 to discover what a dirtbag Steele was in distorting what others told him, the information being already then third hand. They were so quick to buy in to it that standards be damned.
A Remnant of the Old Right said:
” I was horrified by the willingness of supposed conservatives to defend Trump – a man who is manifestly unfit for high office – and the vitriol the true believers reserved for conservative opponents of his candidacy.”
Manifestly unfit. Aaaah.
And yet, many intelligent and discerning people- some of them right here- don’t see what you find to be so ‘manifest’, so readily apparent.
“The screeching about the Clintons, the whataboutism that informs their every defense of the president, the gleeful talk about “owning the libs”… all of this is proof of their moral and political bankruptcy. ”
Soooo, when people wish for the Clintons to be held accountable for their misdeeds, that is proof of their “moral and political bankruptcy”?
That’s downright Orwellian, in a “Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Love” manner. Up is down, left is right.
You-(TL/DR): “Yearning for justice is moral bankruptcy.”
“Maybe the members of the new Right will recognize that blood and soil nationalism – the source of so much evil and carnage in world history – will doom us.”
Blood and soil. Blut und Boden.
When all else fails, call people Nazis then. I see it all so clearly now. Do it all ‘intellectual-like’ and sound smarter when talking down to Les Deplorables.
[Slow clap]
You have no real argument, only insinuations and innuendo informed by your own irrational fears and the ravings of feckless, fringe idiots. I have no doubt that somewhere on the internet, some nominally right wing people have even said some of the things that scare you so much-apologies…’make you so numb’. But I’ve been reading here since 2008, and sometimes even commenting. And I can’t think of anyone here who fits the description of a ‘Blut und Boden’ nationalist.
You’re either a blatant troll or lack any aptitude for reading comprehension.
Which is it?
SueK,
Blood and Soil is an English translation of Blut und Boden.
He (or she) thinks he’s calling us all Nazis and being a very clever boy (or girl) about it.
I find this statement by AG Barr to be deeply troubling;
“The Department of Justice and the FBI are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to rectify the abuses that occurred and to ensure the integrity of the FISA process going forward.
No one is more dismayed about the handling of these FISA applications than Director Wray. I have full confidence in Director Wray and his team at the FBI…”
The first assertion is manifestly untrue and of the second, I haven’t seen one action by Wray in support of Barr’s assertion and in Wray’s inaction much to dispute Barr’s characterization of Wray.
A Remnant of the Old Right,
In his famous speech Patrick Henry asked, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” because that IS what the Left intends for such as you.
Samuel Adams observed of men such as you who hold civility above liberty… “If ye love wealth better than liberty, [or] the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
I rather doubt it but I wonder if you have the slightest awareness of the likelihood that were this 1777, you’d be a Tory.
Oh Mr Remnant…What have those “true conservatives” truly conserved in the last 20 years?
We’ve got Common Core, spiralling debt, unrelenting warfare, men in women’s bathrooms, & Tranny Reading Hour…& 8 years of 0 & nearly the same of Clinton revividus…Goldberg? Blech. Shapiro? Blech. McCain? The Bushes? Romney? (good night I just threw up in my throat) List all your faux-con heroes…What have they conserved?
I contend you might be manifestly unfit to go outside unsupervised.
Geoffrey Britain,
I too found Barr’s statement troubling. Ever get the feeling they’re all playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with you?
I don’t expect any agreement from the folks here, but I hope you keep in mind that there are others – the “Remnant” according to Jonah Goldberg – who feel as I do.
A Remnant of the Old Right: Why doesn’t this work in both directions?
In my experience citizens often disagree, yet can do so in good faith. I was against Trump and now I’m for Trump. Maybe I’ll be against Trump again.
It’s a process of coming to terms with complex realities. I do my best to be honest and thorough, but I’m human — not perfect. I give myself and others the benefit of the doubt.
If I encounter a large group of people with positions different from mine, I try not to play the Nazi card and completely dismiss them. I prefer to understand how and why they see things so differently. From there, perhaps, interesting discussions may emerge.
…lawyers are taught to be able to argue as convincingly as possible for any side of an issue. That is part of their role in the adversary system, and it is an important skill to have.
neo: True, but how does this extend so far as arguing Trump is impeachable because one can read his mind?
How does this occur to a lawyer as a good argument to make and to a judge as a good argument worth accepting?
Is it just whatever can be gotten away with?
huxley:
Well, it’s certainly not something I’d consider a good argument.
But if it’s the only one you’re got, or one of the best ones you’ve got, or one you think will work, plenty of lawyers would make it. And it worked in the case of the Muslim travel ban, as the links I gave in this previous comment showed.
It may just as well go like this huxley: who can know an intention? Why, we’d have to have access to his mind. We can’t do that, no one can. So, we may as well impute what we like, as that will be close enough for the purpose.
There are fancy schmancy theoretical terms for this manner, and in their style, I think this captures the gist.
The FBI has ALWAYS been politicized.
It started with the first Director.
That is the main reason it has ALWAYS done sloppy work.
And why it usually tries to take – steal – credit for the hard work others have done.
For example basking in the glory of breaking Western Hemisphere Nazi spy codes during WWII. The recent book “The Woman Who Smashed Codes” goes into detail about how the publicity hounds in the FBI used the hard work of others to burnish its image.
Any well researched history of the organization will provide example after example of exactly how the FBI is just one more inept bureaucracy existing mostly to perpetuate itself.
The TV image of the FBI is nothing more than … the TV image of the organization. Not even reality TV.
Re: blood and soil
At first appearance I’m inclined to consider myself one of those who favor this – you should either be born here, or be naturalized to be an American. However…!
Then – thanks to those who provided the info – I found this:
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/blood-and-soil/
And reading this, don’t see how anyone could associate themselves with this as a US virtue. Guess I’m not one after all!
Off topically, if I may be permitted, a question that’s bugging me?
In light of the terrorist shooting attack at NAS Pensacola, as well as the Nadal attack in the Obama years at Ft. Hood, and others, is not the President possessed of the power to unilaterally put an end to the DoD policy of non-carry on bases around the country? That is, the President says tomorrow that military personnel may carry with proper permits wherever they are based? If this is so, why has it not happened?
sdferr,
I believe he can.
I believe he doesn’t because he’s probably not sure the order will be followed and I bet POTUS puts more thought into picking his battles than his tweets would imply.
He knows it would be another avenue of attack on him (“PRESIDENT TRUMP FACES REVOLT FROM RANKING OFFICERS!!11!!!11) and he probably wants to open and close those avenues when he judges the timing correct.
Just my theory, for what it’s worth.
Fractal Rabbit,
“I too found Barr’s statement troubling. Ever get the feeling they’re all playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with you?”
There’s simply no doubt about it. When what turn out to be empty assurances that, they’re building a strong case against the perps falls apart… we know that they were just stringing us along.
Re: “He knows it would be another avenue of attack on him (“PRESIDENT TRUMP FACES REVOLT FROM RANKING OFFICERS!!11!!!11)”
Arguably, that’s a valid concern in Trump’s first term. In his second term, its time for “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”
There comes a time when “Let the chips fall where they may” is the ONLY remaining valid action. At that point, any ‘resistance’ from military officers should be met with a Presidential demand for their resignation.
Neo,
One of the things that bothers me the most about this is we keep treating things similar to “a lie is a lie is a lie”
A government official lying in a legal document should rightfully be treated much more harshly than even a politician lying to his constituents
Regardless if it is outright or by omission. Then using that lie to potentially violate our constitutional protections. Where I work (yes in the government) even small ethical breaches are treated relatively harshly. It appears that we are once again rewarding bad behavior by letting those off on a technicality. A technicality I might add that only a very few are entitled to based upon their…connections.
Dear “A Remnant of the Old Right,” you appear to be one of the dimmest of the dim concern trolls: Concern Troll 101 – never openly state your contempt for those you are trying to “help” as evidenced by your “Blood and Soil” own goal.
I “fart in your general direction.” You don’t deserve any more than that.
mythx:
That is what I was referring to (obliquely) in my previous comment where I talk about standards of proof. In other words, should the standard of proof be looser for a government official with great power? Should you have to prove intent, and what would be the standard for proving it? When there is great power, isn’t there great responsibility?
But it is dangerous to mindread nevertheless. The standard of proof must go beyond mindreading. In the present case, it seems to me that since there are SO many errors, and since ALL of them went to hurt Donald Trump, it goes beyond mindreading. At a certain point one can infer intent from behavior if the behavior is egregious enough and repetitive enough. But I’m not sure where that point should be.
Neo,
I would propose this as a good place to start
Any omission from a FISA warrant that the petitioner was aware of when filing the document. WILL BE PROSECUTED.
Why that particular line in the sand? FISA is essentially an artificial construct to satisfy modern sensibilities with constitutional restrictions. Items that are hard to reconcile between domestic terrorism and international affairs.
It is done in secret. Only one side is permitted to offer “evidence” And the target is not allowed to even know of the warrant before or after its execution.
Therefore there exists no adversarial process as exists in a normal court. It should therefore be held to much higher standard that a normal court proceeding. The members of the government apparently counted on the former and completely discounted the later when applying for FISA surveillance against Trump. Any whitewashing of this will simply allow this to be repeated and open ended. The only reason we even know of this is because it was used against a presidential candidate, then leaked to the press to smear him. If they were that bold in this case. I can only imagine that they were far worse when there is no one able to watch them
mythx:
How do you prove awareness? You can prove that someone should have been aware (because they were given the information). But what if they say they forgot? Or never read it? Or didn’t hear it in the first place? Or didn’t understand what it meant? Etc. etc.
It isn’t that easy to prove. And honest mistakes can be caught up in that standard.
However, I agree that if the evidence is good enough, at a certain point it does become undeniable that the person had to have known and was therefore lying on the application, or is criminally negligent.
Well, at some point the judges have to come in to this don’t they? I think I saw somewhere that an unbelievable percentage of these FISA warrants are granted. How bout a little push back and less rubber stamping.
Neo,
Yes an honest mistake can be caught up in that. As you said he may have simply forgotten material facts. As no one is perfect.
But that somewhat proves my point. That these warrants should be held to a much higher scrutiny. They should be double and triple checked before being put before the court.
And at least the person who made the mistake will be afforded legal protections not allowed to the TARGET of their warrant.
Again its not a perfect solution. But at least it would have oversight with actual consequences. Heck someone who argued exigency could even have a defensible argument if something was missed. In certain cases.
But clearly in this particular case that would not be a feasible argument. As this was dragged out for months. And appears to have been orchestrated to be an illegal act, but used the FISA court to give it a thin and unaccountable veneer of legitimacy .
Griffin,
The problem being the j udges are allowed to only hear one side of the argument. There is no counter argument. And if (as it appears) prosecutors are wiling to warp the truth considerably to get the courts blessing.There is no way to counteract that.
Maybe the judges should be more skeptical. But seeing as how the prosecutors can apparently lie. Then use the secrecy of the FISA court to bury that lie. Its hard to fault the judges at this point
“How do you prove awareness? You can prove that someone should have been aware (because they were given the information). But what if they say they forgot?” — Neo (10:05PM)
Hillary Clinton was given a solid week of instruction on the permissible and impermissible ways to handle classified information when she became Sec. of State. When interviewed by the FBI (about her emails) she claimed to be unaware of the most rudimentary aspects of the aforementioned instruction, because she fell in her home and hit her head sometime after she received the instruction. Ludicrous but unsurprising and true.
The FBI investigators immediately went to the supervisor and said, OK let’s get a warrant for her doctor’s records concerning the head injury. I imagine that went up to Comey and was disallowed.
I am beginning to think that most of these process actions at this level of power are just to dazzle and misdirect us plebes from the reality. The reality is that the FBI was never going to allow anyone in their system to attack the Clintons in a meaningful way.
______
“That these warrants should be held to a much higher scrutiny. They should be double and triple checked before being put before the court.” — mythx
I like the idea of “higher scrutiny” though the devil is in the details. However, “checking before being put before the court”? Whether triple or quadruple checked, these checking people are the very people that we might suspect, at times, to be intentionally subverting the process.
I would prefer to see the FISC itself have an investigating team with Gestapo like authorities to investigate the people appearing before their court, and their minions. Then you’d likely get document reciting flunkies appearing before the court.
Ultimately, the FISA system and the NSA database is way too much concentrated secret power and it is folly to think that somehow it can be controlled in a responsible way.
Look at it this way. One president created it, and it took exactly one more president, the next president, to subvert it and use it to cement political power. It didn’t take a century or multiple presidents. It took one president and a total of perhaps 12-14 years to subvert it. (I think the Stellar Wind NSA project feeding most of the database is roughly 12 years old.)
This whole mess is a result of government functionaries taking advantage of devices put in place in connection with national security issues. These things recede into the past, but remember the “wall” put in place between the FBI and the CIA that was held partly responsible for the 9/11 intelligence failures? Remember how the controversial but flexible Jamie Gorelick was criticized for the steps she took to make sure that the CIA didn’t spy on American citizens? Here’s a paragraph from a Washington Times editorial in 2004 discussing the controversy arising because Ms. Gorelick was a member of the 9/11 Commission and was very critical of Bush Administration procedures:
“On Tuesday, Attorney General John Ashcroft declassified a four-page directive sent by Ms. Gorelick (the No. 2 official in the Clinton Justice Department) on March 4, 1995, to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Mary Jo White, the New York-based U.S. attorney investigating the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the memo, Ms. Gorelick ordered Mr. Freeh and Ms. White to follow information-sharing procedures that “go beyond what is legally required,” in order to avoid “any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance” that the Justice Department was using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, instead of ordinary criminal investigative procedures, in an effort to undermine the civil liberties of terrorism suspects.”
That was then. This is now. By the time we get to the Brennan/Clapper/Comey clown show, FISA warrants had in fact become the weapon of choice to undermine the civil liberties of Americans associated with the Trump campaign by the bureaucrats in charge of the DoJ and the CIA.
I understand Barr’s desire to avoid tipping the entire national intelligence cart into the street the way the Church Committee did after Watergate, but the abusers of these processes should be held accountable, and prosecuted if appropriate, as an example to others. They have already lost their jobs. At a minimum they should be exposed as knaves and rascals beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the Watergate days, people went to jail for abuses of their position. As I said above, unless people are punished for this, the post-Watergate reforms are meaningless, and Watergate is finally over. The FBI will do what they have always done: assist prosecutors in making their cases better than the facts warrant.
You have even less freedom than you thought you had. Thanks, Obama.
“Ultimately, the FISA system and the NSA database is way too much concentrated secret power and it is folly to think that somehow it can be controlled in a responsible way.”- TommyJay
I completely agree. Expecting civil servants to use good judgement and deference cannot be expected. And that is why I think this method was the reason chosen to go after Trump. Its very nature prevents oversight.
“Look at it this way. One president created it, and it took exactly one more president, the next president, to subvert it and use it to cement political power.” TommyJay
Yup and not only use it, but against a rival presidential candidate. That not only took a colossal amount of chutzpah. But an unwavering belief in HILLARY CLINTON. Of all people. They not only showed a willingness to break the law. But to believe their own spin and horrific judgement.
I have often seen people promoted and appointed beyond their abilities. But it truly seems we are at a point that all levers of government are run by these same people. And they are unified in their belief in their own goodness, insight and superiority
“In the Watergate days, people went to jail for abuses of their position.”-Amadeus 48
Sadly I think they learned their lesson. Oh not the one the rest of us would have learned. Dont break the law. No they learned to use the layers and layers of bureaucracy to hide what they are doing. Leave enough breadcrumbs in strategic spots to place blame elsewhere. And under no circumstances prosecute anyone lest you be prosecuted also.
A Remnant of the Old Right is a transparent and disgusting troll. He not only insulted as crypto-Nazis readers who believe that borders should mean something, he embraced the posers and frustrated opportunists who colonize the neverTrump right. Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and their ilk have demonstrated that they really subsist on nothing but envy.
What are their principles? Got me. All I hear from them is Orange Man bad.
That our FBI is incompetent, careless, and sloppy does not make me feel more secure. But Director Wray is going to fix things, right? We can hope. These are supposed to be our best cops. But guess what? Most of them are lawyers. accountants, and electronic technicians who get some firearms training, but mainly pursue white collar criminals. The way they took down Flynn, Manafort, Stone, and Cohen is typical of the way they operate. Get the perps on taxes, taxi medallions, perjury, or other process crimes.. It’s what they do.
Were the higher ups at FBI and CIA biased during Hurricane Crossfire? We can’t read minds, but we can infer some things from their activities after they were relieved of their government duties. Comey, McCabe, Brennan, and Clapper all immediately began a campaign of anti-Trump activities on TV, in the print media, and in books. They may not have been biased while they were doing their government work, but they sure as heck didn’t find it difficult to be biased as soon as they left government. Probably doesn’t mean anything, right?
Yet, in today’s impeachment hearings, the Democrats opined that they could read the President’s mind when it came to the question of lethal aid for Ukraine. He intended to use it as a bargaining chip to get Ukraine to investigate Ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections and, and………to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. Yet, they can find no direct evidence of such intent. They are, however, sure that they can read his mind on that issue. Now, that means something, right?
We are now down the rabbit hole.
Amadeus 48
Sadly people like him simply cannot recognize why Trump was elected. People in places not NY or CA are tired of endless corruption. The next President simply could not be another member of the anointed class. It is why so many people were willing to take someone who had zero track record as a politician. Appeared very self absorbed and somewhat unstable. And were willing to give him control over such a well know commodity.
Frankly I think that many of them are as you said. Just trolling for attention. But I think there is a portion that are like Bill Kristol. That are so offended that we did not see his wisdom. So offended to have been cast aside. That quite literally nothing could ever convince him
Fractal Rabbit on December 9, 2019 at 8:59 pm said:
sdferr,
I believe he can.
I believe he doesn’t because he’s probably not sure the order will be followed and I bet POTUS puts more thought into picking his battles than his tweets would imply.
* * *
Trump seems to be threading that needle correctly.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/a-pensacola-postscript.php
“President Trump has instructed military base commanders to rethink policies about allowing military personnel on bases to be armed. Like so many reforms of the Trump era, it is long overdue.”
John Solomon’s posts are very fact-filled, beginning with the lastest one and working backward to the one where he accurately predicts the OIG’s report, coming short only in guessing the actual number of violations by the FBI.
https://johnsolomonreports.com/just-how-bad-was-the-fbis-russia-fisa-51-violations-and-9-false-statements/
https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-10-most-important-revelations-to-expect-from-the-russia-probe-fisa-report/
Great analogy.
I continue to be amazed that Turley and Dershowitz support theDemocratic party.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
Page xiv of the executive summary —
“That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand- picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process.”
But there was no provable partisan bias.
Ahem.
Although it sounds like Barr and Durham are being way too nice to Wray and the other feds, it is an obligatory point of political dueling etiquette to salute the person you are about to run through with your rapier.
Horowitz’s report describes the genesis of the investigation into the Trump campaign, and then defines the “low threshold” for starting that investigation on page ii:
An Australian diplomat and a Trump campaign worker walked into a bar…and we already know most of that story, including all the strange and shadowy figures in the background.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/04/19/mueller-claimed-joseph-mifsud-lied-to-fbi-about-papadopoulos-contacts-but-he-wasnt-charged/
If Barr and Durham show that Papadopoulos had been set up by the IC under the Obama administration in order to get a quasi-legal hook into Trump’s campaign, then the entire predicate for Crossfire Hurricane not only disappears, they destroy Horowitz’s “lack of bias” finding and the entire coup unravels.
Hopefully to be reknit into orange jumpsuits.
“The screeching about the Clintons, the whataboutism”
There is the tell. Your concern is duly noted, “Remnant of the Old Right”. More likely a remnant of the troll boiler room that gave us manju.
Here is an interesting comparison of the Russia & Ukraine stories, and how they differ in an essential point that the Democrats are trying to obfuscate.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/12/09/meddling-collusion-and-ukraine-vs-russia/
On the audit Horowitz suggests (which generally means “continue business as usual”) —
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/12/09/horowitz-report-sufficient-predicate-crossfire-hurricane-probably-not-page-fisa-warrant/
John Sexton connects some dots from pages 6 and 173-174 of the report.
Steele’s clear intent was to get some publicity for his dossier BEFORE the election, but the FBI was not cooperating enough to suit him.
https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2019/12/09/ig-report-reliability-steele-dossier/
Someone posted this link on an impeachment thread, but it’s important to remember that the impeachment farce is connected to the FISA scandal because Ukraine is connected to Russia.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/revealed-ukraine-was-the-origin-of-the-trump-russia-collusion-hoax-and-it-ran-right-through-the-office-of-eric-ciaramella/
I scanned through the Horowitz document just to see if Ukraine was mentioned in it: 47 hits, all of which dealt with the GOP platform on aid to Ukraine and some alleged changes that were attributed to Page (and others) for the FISA applications, but it turns out (surprise!) he wasn’t involved in that particular situation.
What jumped out at me though, was how often the FBI and even the IG cited “news reports” as information sources, with a casual assurance that indicated they believed that reporters were some kind of investigative agency that thoroughly vetted everything they printed for factual veracity.
*smh*
In all of this, I note little focus on the responsibilities and conduct of the judges who comprise the FISA court which, according to what I have read, during it’s life has granted something like 99.99% of all requests for warrants.
Didn’t these supposedly savvy and experienced judges—appointed, by the way, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts–have a responsibility to closely and carefully scrutinize each individual request, view them with some amount of skepticism, ask a lot of questions, and not just rubber stamp them?
Are they, in effect, just hands with rubber stamps attached, and don’t read and examine, but just blindly stamp whatever is put in front of them?
What jumped out at me though, was how often the FBI and even the IG cited “news reports” as information sources, with a casual assurance that indicated they believed that reporters were some kind of investigative agency that thoroughly vetted everything they printed for factual veracity.
Discovering that the FBI refuses to tape interviews (something a police force in a moth-eaten section of Louisiana will do) suggests perhaps that they’re a sloppy, inbred unprofessional outfit led by people who don’t belong there. A lawyer I correspond with said in 36 years of trial practice, he had to his recollection never seen a witness behave like Peter Sztrok. There have been scandals of late in regard to their crime laboratory, as well as spectacular failures like the Ruby Ridge fiasco (for which no one was punished). One gets the impression that every aspect of federal law enforcement is poisoned: the Code itself, the culture of the U.S. Attorney’s offices, the culture of the specialized divisions of the Department of Justice, the culture of the FBI. Now we discover the Bureau of Prisons is penetrable. Some one bought off the guards on duty, bought off a technician who services the security cameras, bought off an official who assigns prisoners to their cells, and bought off someone who could allow an outside assassin into the complex.
The FBI has reverted to pre-Watergate behavior and then acts like it deserves praise for weaponizing its own sociopathic behavior.
It is time to be blunt about this. Wray and Horowitz can sugarcoat it, but this is a disgusting episode. That awful James Comey should be looking at a prison term. The major media are acting like Pravda, spewing the party line without remorse.
Geoffrey Britain,
If you truly believe that the vast majority of the Left wants to imprison you and subjugate you, then I don’t believe that a rational, level discussion can be had. It’s utter nonsense, the fever dream of the denizens of the alt-right and their ilk. I’m sure a small number of people might speak the way you describe, but they are a tiny – >0.0001% – portion of the citizenry. The vast majority of people in this country are good people – good neighbors, blessed family members, beloved friends. Treat them as such and you will be rewarded.
I didn’t mention this in my earlier post, but this talk about the coming “Second Civil War” – talk which always seems to suggest restless anticipation – is truly vile. Changing demographics do not threaten your existence, immigrants are not coming to steal your job, and nothing good can come from political violence.
I rather resent your characterization of me. Liberty will best be sustained not by demonizing the Left, for this will only polarize the country further and make our politics more hostile and bitter. It will be served better by those who work with others in good faith, recognizing that incremental progress is often better than no progress at all.
Last word, for Fractal Rabbit: When you burn straw men, make sure to do so in a well-ventilated area. Then again I should not offer advice, as you seem to have quite a bit of experience in that area.
Mr. Remnant,
Admirable sentiments, to be sure.
But four questions:
What is your take on Hillary Clinton’s (et al.) adamant, provocative and polarizing, refusal to accept the results of the 2016 elections?
On the Kavanaugh affair?
On the never-ending impeachment attempts on the president?
On the rampant dishonesty of the media?
Oh, and a fifth:
Just what planet do you live on?
Thanks in advance….
A Remnant of the Old Right:
Bring out the “ilk,” call out the “alt right.”
‘The left ain’t so bad, I’m in bed with them, and they gave me a job!’
Borders? Diversity is strength! Any other last words and wisdom to bestow?
Oppressed by Orange Man Bad it seems. Poor, poor, baby.
If you truly believe that the vast majority of the Left wants to imprison you and subjugate you, then I don’t believe that a rational, level discussion can be had. It’s utter nonsense, the fever dream of the denizens of the alt-right and their ilk.
He’s tracking how dissidents are treated in Britain, Sweden, Canada, New York, Colorado, &c. Do try to keep up.
A Remnant of the Old Right,
Straw men?
That’s rich coming from someone who throws his clever Nazi-Blood and Soil accusation around. Perhaps you could be more specific regarding the Straw Man I have constructed in place of your true argument?
You know, maybe as an example of your “Good Faith” you lectured Geoffrey about…
And there you have it:
“A free and fair election in 2020 cannot happen unless Trump is impeached”
(Translation: “A Democratic victory in 2020 cannot happen unless Trump is impeached”)
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6114580682001#sp=show-clips
…and…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-08/nadler-says-without-impeachment-trump-may-try-to-rig-election
Not bad for “those who work with others in good faith, recognizing that incremental progress is often better than no progress at all.”!!
(Translation: “Bring it on”?)
…but nice try! Superb. Really!!
Oh, BTW:
https://nypost.com/2019/12/09/democrats-latest-impeachment-line-investigating-corruption-is-election-interference/
HOLD ON! (AKA STOP THE PRESSES!!(?))
Maybe Mr. Remnant is right after all:
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/12/09/moderate-house-dem-im-struggling-see-evidence-justifies-impeachment/
H/T: Instapundit
I watched a new long-form (4 hrs.) documentary on Netflix called “The Confession Killer” about the strange case of murderer Henry Lee Lucas and the justice system fiasco surrounding him.
Why bring that up here? The second half of the series is where the federal deep state rears its ugly head. The only honest guy with power who tried to right the ship, DA Vic Feasell, had to be destroyed. The head of the Texas DPS, who had previously been the assistant director of the FBI, unleashed the FBI, the IRS, and the local media to extort false testimony on phony crimes committed by Mr. Feasell and destroy his reputation.
Mr. Feasell was ultimately acquitted on a possible 80 year criminal sentence, and in a subsequent media libel case was awarded a $58M win. There are many interesting sub stories, including a death sentence commutation by then Gov. G.W. Bush.
Maybe Tuvea on December 9, 2019 at 8:07 pm is exactly correct.
“Then I don’t believe that a level, rational discussion can be had”
… while you are calling us Nazis. Don’t they try to train you in the boiler room to make it less obvious you are a paid troll?
What Remnant’s idea of conservatism that President Trump is not following is mysterious to me, a guy who’s been a conservative since before the Goldwater campaign. Lower taxes? check! Less government regulation? Check! Judges who follow the Constitution instead of making laws up as they please? Check! Building up the U.S. military? Check! Reducing government expenditures wherever possible? Check! Defense of the Bill of Rights? Check!
What exactly are the conservative principles that Mr. Remnant is longing for? Reducing the national debt? Will never happen as long as there is a Congress. Unlimited illegal immigration to keep wages of the hoi polloi low? Too bad. Good old-fashioned State Department Anti-Semitism? Sorry about that. Not fighting against the dishonest press? Wrong century, pal!
Wait, I get it! A president who talks like Bill Buckley! Not gonna happen in this life, Remnant.
The notion of the importance of Blood and Soil does not originate with the right.
The idea originated with progressive President of Stanford University and infamous eugenicist David Starr Jordan:
The Blood of the Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Nation-David-Starr-Jordan/dp/1110414862/ref=nodl_
The Nazis were heavily-influenced by progressive American eugenicists like David Starr Jordan, Madison Grant and Charles Goethe.
Progressives are much more at home with the idea of eugenics… and mass murder… than are conservatives, always have been and still are. Ask Bernie:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460045-sanders-under-fire-for-remarks-on-population-control%3famp
Overpopulation is the progressive rationale for erasing the wrong people’s future.
Just consider the progressive position on… hell, just about anything.
The left is pro baby-murder… cuz there’s too many damn brown people in the world.
The left is anti-DDT, they’d rather all those awful people in Africa (and their babies…*especially* their babies) get eaten by malarial mosquitos and die… cuz there’s too many brown people in the world.
The left is anti-GMO because they want the poor brown people to starve to death… cuz there’s too many brown people in the world.
Really, it’s progressives that threaten social harmony, not conservatives; and by progressives you should know I also enumerate the corporatist, nominal-right.
The corporatist, international, progressive, corporatist right has evolved beyond nationalism, has transcended America. So fuck ‘em.
A group of people that is just as at-home in NY, Boston, Chicago or LA as they are in London, Paris or Berlin, but feels nothing but contempt for suburban and most-especially rural America, are of marginal use in conserving our union.
You folks don’t belong here… or really *anywhere*… anymore. I suggest you cut bait.