Author Topic: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State  (Read 264293 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
photos say it all at the "rally for J6
« Reply #1051 on: September 19, 2021, 08:53:14 AM »
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/setup-press-police-undercover-agents-ray-bans-protesters-j-6-rally-washington-dc/

My favorites are ones showing the media mob trying to make a headline story where there is none.

and the Capitol Police wearing their Hollywood Darth Vater clown suits
and the more than obvious Fed agents all looking like clones in "civilian" clothing wearing the same issued Secret Service like Ray Bans........

Even the Huff shitpost had to admit is set up fizzled .  You can go to their site to see it yourself.

I don't want to post because I was there once this past week to see if they carried the non story and indeed they did . I would rather not annoy my self and go there more than once per week .


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
War on the rule of law; Deep State collusion, Andy McCarthy
« Reply #1053 on: September 21, 2021, 06:09:20 AM »
https://nypost.com/2021/09/20/dem-plot-to-steele-the-white-house-anatomy-of-a-political-dirty-trick/



There is a long game and a short game going on in special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Democratic Party lawyer Michael Sussmann on a false-statements count.

The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI’s then-general counsel, James Baker, on Sept. 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by last Sunday (Sept. 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

It is unusual for a one-count false-statements charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.

Here is where the prosecutor appears to be going: The Trump–Russia collusion narrative was essentially a fabrication of the Clinton campaign that was peddled to the FBI (among other government agencies) and to the media by agents of the Clinton campaign — particularly, its lawyers at Perkins Coie — who concealed the fact that they were quite intentionally working on the campaign’s behalf, and that they did not actually believe there was much, if anything, to the collusion narrative. It was serviceable as political dirt but would not amount to anything real for criminal or national-security purposes.

Fresh proof the Russiagate ‘scandal’ was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign

Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he was not working for any client when he brought Baker sensitive information — even though Perkins Coie client-billing records obtained by Durham show that Sussmann was logging his time as spent working for the firm’s Clinton campaign account. The indictment describes the information Sussmann gave Baker as expert analyses (mainly in the form of white papers), which showed a backchannel connection between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. The back channel was said to be established by Internet communications between servers at Trump Tower and at Alfa Bank (a top Russian bank said to have Putin-regime connections).

In fact, the indictment alleges, Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign and another client — an unidentified cyber expert and executive (Tech Executive-1) — who was expecting to get an important government cybersecurity job if Clinton was elected. (The executive made clear that he — the indictment describes a he — had no interest in working for Trump.)

What Durham describes in the indictment will confirm many people in their most cynical perceptions of a sinister Washington deep state. Tech Executive-1 owned Internet companies that offered domain name system “resolution services.” The indictment explains that these involve the lucrative business of translating recognizable Internet domain names (e.g., http://www.google.com) to numerical IP addresses (e.g. 123.456.7.89.). These private companies have arrangements with the government that provide them with access to a great deal of nonpublic information about Internet traffic.

Must see: NY Post graphic
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/21.2N016.TargetTrump_web.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

The government provides this privileged access because the companies are supposed to help with cybersecurity. But Tech Executive-1 and Perkins Coie are said to have exploited this access for political purposes.



Tech Executive-1 was having contact with Sussmann and another Perkins Coie lawyer (who is not identified in the indictment, but appears to be Marc Elias, who was the main lawyer at the firm for Clinton and the DNC), and with what is identified as a “U.S. investigative firm.” That firm appears to be Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson’s oppo-research outfit that was retained by Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Clinton campaign, to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump — the exercise that resulted in the farcical “Steele Dossier,” generated principally by Christopher Steele, the former British spy recruited by Simpson for that purpose.

In a nutshell, then, people closely connected to the Clinton campaign use privileged access to nonpublic information for political purposes. They concoct it into a political narrative that they know is baseless but can be convincingly spun to suggest Trump is in cahoots with Putin.

They then simultaneously peddle that storyline to the media and the FBI — the latter of which opens an investigation of Trump because the Clinton team, in this instance Sussmann, misrepresents its intentions. Sussmann was supposedly bringing this alarming “evidence” to the FBI not for political purposes but because he and his associates were well-meaning citizens concerned about national security.

Naturally in this cozy world, Sussmann is a former Department of Justice cybersecurity official who traded on his long-standing professional relationship with Baker, the bureau’s lawyer.


A federal grand jury hande dup an indictment Thursday against a prominent Democratic attorney, alleging that he falsely claimed to the FBI that he was not representing Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign when he raised concerns about purported ties between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.

Attorney linked to Hillary Clinton campaign indicted in Durham Russia origins probe

The indictment details that researchers at Tech Executive-1’s companies were very uncomfortable being tasked to run extensive queries about Trump and his campaign in their databases, but they did it because Tech Executive-1 was a powerful person. The researchers also highlighted significant weaknesses in the Trump–Russia narrative that they were being asked to weave, to the point that even Tech Executive-1 acknowledged it was a “red herring.”

But because the objective was to craft a political theme that would damage Trump, rather than to prove an actual national-security peril, this information was kept from the government.

Durham’s speaking indictment, then, is much more interesting than the single false-statements charge against Sussmann.

There is one last thing that I find interesting but that is not in the indictment. Among the many risible aspects of the Steele Dossier is that Steele, the great Russia expert, obviously doesn’t know much about Alfa Bank . . . which he repeatedly misspells as “Alpha” Bank. One of Steele’s “intelligence reports” from September 2016 makes extravagant claims about connections and favors exchanged between the owners of Alfa Bank and Putin. Consequently, the owners sued Steele for libel in London.

In British court, Steele was deposed. He related that he didn’t know about any Alfa Bank–Trump connection. So why put it in the dossier? Well, he was told about the alleged corrupt Alfa Bank–Trump tie by . . . wait for it . . . yes . . . Michael Sussmann.

So, the Clinton lawyers at Perkins Coie give information to Steele, who folds it into the collusion tall tale he presses on the FBI, without telling the bureau that he’s working for the Clinton campaign (through his cutouts, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS).

Simultaneously, the Clinton lawyers are getting suspect information from a cyber-exec client who is hoping for a big job in the anticipated Clinton administration, and one of the lawyers — Sussmann — presses it on the FBI while allegedly lying in order to conceal that he’s actually working for both the Clinton campaign and the selfsame cyber exec who’s hoping for a job in the Clinton administration.

Meantime, having orchestrated the creation of all this smoke, the Clinton campaign exploits it to tell the media and the American people, “See, Trump is a Kremlin mole!”

I suddenly think the eventual Durham report could be very interesting reading.

Andrew C. McCarthy is the author of “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.” Reprinted with permission from National Review.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2021, 06:27:20 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Anyone think there will be legal consequences for this?
« Reply #1054 on: September 23, 2021, 11:11:20 AM »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Justice Alito
« Reply #1059 on: September 30, 2021, 05:58:00 PM »
"unprecedented"
intimidation tactics

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-alito-says-the-supreme-court-didn-t-nullify-roe-v-wade-in-texas-abortion-decision-this-portrayal-feeds-unprecedented-efforts-to-intimidate-the-court/ar-AAP0PQi

the leftist media is stepping up attacks on the SCOTUS
starting to see frequent articles including one today
from sotomayor
who is fretting

for her to claim anything about the right leaning court being too partisan is such typical leftist partisanship






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1065 on: October 04, 2021, 09:00:46 PM »
I begin to understand your animus towards AMcC.  That certainly is a deeply disappointing comment.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1066 on: October 04, 2021, 09:37:51 PM »
I begin to understand your animus towards AMcC.  That certainly is a deeply disappointing comment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-justice-department/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1067 on: October 05, 2021, 02:45:30 AM »
Justice delayed but not denied

The Durham probe creeps toward culprits

Motion and emotion make eyes flutter wide open, stultifying inaction and bloodless narratives make eyelids droop. The 30-month probe into the roots of the FBI’s Russian collusion investigation has elicited little but yawns, but that is changing. New revelations are emerging that could ultimately expose the shadowy forces which played havoc with voter sentiments and unfairly tarnished the 2016 candidacy and subsequent presidency of Donald Trump. The culprits may yet reap their just rewards.

Special Counsel John Durham has buttressed his recent indictment of an attorney for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign by serving the Perkins Coie law firm with new subpoenas. With lawyer Michael Sussmann charged last month with lying to the FBI, these new demands for records from his employer, first reported Thursday by CNN, indicate a systematic effort to widen the search for parties responsible for setting the Trump-Russia collusion deception in motion.

Mr. Sussmann’s 27-page indictment states he alleged, falsely, that the Trump Organization maintained a secret communication channel with Alfa Bank, a Russian enterprise with ties to Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin. The tip sent the FBI on a wild goose chase seven weeks before the Trump-Clinton vote. No evidence was found.

Mr. Sussmann also failed to disclose to the FBI his ties to the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and a technology industry executive who was working in coordination with Clinton associates to collect “non-public” opposition research. The material included the bogus Alfa-Bank tale, which was used to discredit Mr. Trump.

The individual, described in the indictment as “Tech Executive- 1,” has not been charged -- yet. Neither has “Campaign Lawyer-1,” who worked with the two to spread the false Trump-Russia narrative to “the media and others.” Also unindicted thus far is “Researcher-1,” who bluntly admitted the deficiency of the Trump-Russia narrative in an email to fellow schemers: “Do you realize we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association?”

Despite their flimsy case intended to frame Mr. Trump, Mr. Sussmann et al. successfully weaponized the political attack when the FBI’s subsequent investigation of Trump associates made headlines. As The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough has pointed out in news coverage, Sussmann colleague at Perkins Coie, superlawyer Marc Elias, kept Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri in the loop about the Trump smear campaign.

Americans should keep an eye open for additional developments in the Durham probe. The trail of bread crumbs clearly meanders through the offices of lawyers, tech experts, and Clinton campaign bigwigs. As the investigators continue to unravel the plot to handcuff Mr. Trump to Russia’s Mr. Putin, the anonymity of individuals involved could end with additional indictments.

In the fullness of time, Americans might even learn what Hillary knew about the scheme to frame her rival. Justice delayed might not mean justice denied, after all


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State, Andrew McCarthy
« Reply #1069 on: October 05, 2021, 07:24:11 AM »
I begin to understand your animus towards AMcC.  That certainly is a deeply disappointing comment.

Oct 2021: AG Garland uses FBI wrongly and dangerously against parents speaking out as responsible citizens.

Jan 2021:  Andy McCarthy said DOJ in good hands under Merrick Garland.

Note the reverse time line.

This means (to me) McCarthy got that wrong, and other things wrong, not that McCarthy endorses Garland today or the deep state takeover.  In Jan, Garland looked like NOT a woke, squad type pick for the office.  Now it looks like they have something on him and he does exactly what he is instructed to do by the same people who pull Joe Biden's strings.

I recall Rush Limbaugh spoke regularly of Andy McCarthy as his friend, taken to mean a like minded, trusted ally on these matters and his go to person for legal analysis and insights.  I don't think that is possible over a long period of time if McCarthy is an enemy of our interests.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2021, 07:30:53 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: War on the rule of law; Deep State collusion, Andy McCarthy
« Reply #1070 on: October 05, 2021, 07:38:50 AM »
Don’t be surprised when this goes nowhere.


https://nypost.com/2021/09/20/dem-plot-to-steele-the-white-house-anatomy-of-a-political-dirty-trick/



There is a long game and a short game going on in special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Democratic Party lawyer Michael Sussmann on a false-statements count.

The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI’s then-general counsel, James Baker, on Sept. 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by last Sunday (Sept. 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

It is unusual for a one-count false-statements charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.

Here is where the prosecutor appears to be going: The Trump–Russia collusion narrative was essentially a fabrication of the Clinton campaign that was peddled to the FBI (among other government agencies) and to the media by agents of the Clinton campaign — particularly, its lawyers at Perkins Coie — who concealed the fact that they were quite intentionally working on the campaign’s behalf, and that they did not actually believe there was much, if anything, to the collusion narrative. It was serviceable as political dirt but would not amount to anything real for criminal or national-security purposes.

Fresh proof the Russiagate ‘scandal’ was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign

Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he was not working for any client when he brought Baker sensitive information — even though Perkins Coie client-billing records obtained by Durham show that Sussmann was logging his time as spent working for the firm’s Clinton campaign account. The indictment describes the information Sussmann gave Baker as expert analyses (mainly in the form of white papers), which showed a backchannel connection between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. The back channel was said to be established by Internet communications between servers at Trump Tower and at Alfa Bank (a top Russian bank said to have Putin-regime connections).

In fact, the indictment alleges, Sussmann was working for the Clinton campaign and another client — an unidentified cyber expert and executive (Tech Executive-1) — who was expecting to get an important government cybersecurity job if Clinton was elected. (The executive made clear that he — the indictment describes a he — had no interest in working for Trump.)

What Durham describes in the indictment will confirm many people in their most cynical perceptions of a sinister Washington deep state. Tech Executive-1 owned Internet companies that offered domain name system “resolution services.” The indictment explains that these involve the lucrative business of translating recognizable Internet domain names (e.g., http://www.google.com) to numerical IP addresses (e.g. 123.456.7.89.). These private companies have arrangements with the government that provide them with access to a great deal of nonpublic information about Internet traffic.

Must see: NY Post graphic
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/21.2N016.TargetTrump_web.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

The government provides this privileged access because the companies are supposed to help with cybersecurity. But Tech Executive-1 and Perkins Coie are said to have exploited this access for political purposes.



Tech Executive-1 was having contact with Sussmann and another Perkins Coie lawyer (who is not identified in the indictment, but appears to be Marc Elias, who was the main lawyer at the firm for Clinton and the DNC), and with what is identified as a “U.S. investigative firm.” That firm appears to be Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson’s oppo-research outfit that was retained by Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Clinton campaign, to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump — the exercise that resulted in the farcical “Steele Dossier,” generated principally by Christopher Steele, the former British spy recruited by Simpson for that purpose.

In a nutshell, then, people closely connected to the Clinton campaign use privileged access to nonpublic information for political purposes. They concoct it into a political narrative that they know is baseless but can be convincingly spun to suggest Trump is in cahoots with Putin.

They then simultaneously peddle that storyline to the media and the FBI — the latter of which opens an investigation of Trump because the Clinton team, in this instance Sussmann, misrepresents its intentions. Sussmann was supposedly bringing this alarming “evidence” to the FBI not for political purposes but because he and his associates were well-meaning citizens concerned about national security.

Naturally in this cozy world, Sussmann is a former Department of Justice cybersecurity official who traded on his long-standing professional relationship with Baker, the bureau’s lawyer.


A federal grand jury hande dup an indictment Thursday against a prominent Democratic attorney, alleging that he falsely claimed to the FBI that he was not representing Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign when he raised concerns about purported ties between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.

Attorney linked to Hillary Clinton campaign indicted in Durham Russia origins probe

The indictment details that researchers at Tech Executive-1’s companies were very uncomfortable being tasked to run extensive queries about Trump and his campaign in their databases, but they did it because Tech Executive-1 was a powerful person. The researchers also highlighted significant weaknesses in the Trump–Russia narrative that they were being asked to weave, to the point that even Tech Executive-1 acknowledged it was a “red herring.”

But because the objective was to craft a political theme that would damage Trump, rather than to prove an actual national-security peril, this information was kept from the government.

Durham’s speaking indictment, then, is much more interesting than the single false-statements charge against Sussmann.

There is one last thing that I find interesting but that is not in the indictment. Among the many risible aspects of the Steele Dossier is that Steele, the great Russia expert, obviously doesn’t know much about Alfa Bank . . . which he repeatedly misspells as “Alpha” Bank. One of Steele’s “intelligence reports” from September 2016 makes extravagant claims about connections and favors exchanged between the owners of Alfa Bank and Putin. Consequently, the owners sued Steele for libel in London.

In British court, Steele was deposed. He related that he didn’t know about any Alfa Bank–Trump connection. So why put it in the dossier? Well, he was told about the alleged corrupt Alfa Bank–Trump tie by . . . wait for it . . . yes . . . Michael Sussmann.

So, the Clinton lawyers at Perkins Coie give information to Steele, who folds it into the collusion tall tale he presses on the FBI, without telling the bureau that he’s working for the Clinton campaign (through his cutouts, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS).

Simultaneously, the Clinton lawyers are getting suspect information from a cyber-exec client who is hoping for a big job in the anticipated Clinton administration, and one of the lawyers — Sussmann — presses it on the FBI while allegedly lying in order to conceal that he’s actually working for both the Clinton campaign and the selfsame cyber exec who’s hoping for a job in the Clinton administration.

Meantime, having orchestrated the creation of all this smoke, the Clinton campaign exploits it to tell the media and the American people, “See, Trump is a Kremlin mole!”

I suddenly think the eventual Durham report could be very interesting reading.

Andrew C. McCarthy is the author of “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.” Reprinted with permission from National Review.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State, Durham investigation
« Reply #1072 on: October 05, 2021, 07:46:44 AM »
 "Justice delayed might not mean justice denied, after all"

No, it does mean justice denied, IMHO.  We could have used this information in a (Mueller) interim report that never happened before Pelosi, Omar, Tlaib and left winger Dean Phillips wrongfully took over the House of Representatives under the cloud that the President was a Russian spy.  Likewise, we could have used an interim Durham report coming into the 2020 election where voters (allegedly) elected the party of corruption for the House, Senate and Presidency.  36 months later he may indict more people we never heard of and the real cheating will go forever unpunished.

History should tell the real story but the victors tend to write history, and already control all the media and classrooms.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1075 on: October 05, 2021, 09:53:02 AM »
I think the moral of the story with regards to Andrew McCarthy being wrong about Merrick Garland.

is

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE ANY DEMOCRAT OF BEING A PARTISAN PRICK.




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State, Andrew McCarthy
« Reply #1078 on: October 05, 2021, 10:25:58 AM »
I begin to understand your animus towards AMcC.  That certainly is a deeply disappointing comment.

Oct 2021: AG Garland uses FBI wrongly and dangerously against parents speaking out as responsible citizens.

Jan 2021:  Andy McCarthy said DOJ in good hands under Merrick Garland.

Note the reverse time line.

This means (to me) McCarthy got that wrong, and other things wrong, not that McCarthy endorses Garland today or the deep state takeover.  In Jan, Garland looked like NOT a woke, squad type pick for the office.  Now it looks like they have something on him and he does exactly what he is instructed to do by the same people who pull Joe Biden's strings.

I recall Rush Limbaugh spoke regularly of Andy McCarthy as his friend, taken to mean a like minded, trusted ally on these matters and his go to person for legal analysis and insights.  I don't think that is possible over a long period of time if McCarthy is an enemy of our interests.

"According to Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and longtime friend of Jim Comey,"

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/49008-trump-cans-fbi-director-comey-2017-05-10

A higher loyalty?



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
WSJ: More FBI FISA skullduggery
« Reply #1081 on: October 06, 2021, 01:11:06 PM »


Congress has failed to reform federal surveillance laws, despite the FBI’s 2016 abuse of a secret court to spy on the Trump presidential campaign. The latest report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s other surveillance abuses is more evidence of the need to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. Horowitz’s 2019 report found the FBI had gulled the FISA court into letting it spy on former Trump aide Carter Page by presenting false information. The scandal inspired the Horowitz team to conduct a broader audit of FBI compliance, and the results are damning.


The FBI must abide by what are known as Woods Procedures that include a file supporting every factual assertion in a warrant application. As the IG notes, surveillance warrants are among the Justice Department’s “most intrusive investigative authorities” and must be “scrupulously accurate.”

The IG’s preliminary look last year into a sample of 29 wiretap applications said the FBI couldn’t locate Woods files for four applications, and the IG found errors in the remaining 25. As last week’s full report explains, the FBI and Justice have since acknowledged the 29 applications contained a total of 209 errors. These range from typographical (38) and date (42) errors, to unsupported facts (17), misidentified sources of information (15), and deviations from source documents (93).


The IG also found 209 examples in the 29 applications of the FBI failing to provide “adequate documentation to support factual assertions.” In all “there were over 400 instances of non-compliance with the Woods Procedures.”


Most alarming are the four errors that DOJ and the FBI admit were “material”—serious enough to have potentially changed the FISA court’s determination of “probable cause” to issue a warrant. The errors related to three applications in which the FBI omitted important or relevant information about targets, or provided outdated or unverified facts.

In response to the IG’s preliminary findings last year, the FBI reviewed more than 7,000 FISA applications from January 2015 to March 2020, and the IG reports that for 183 of them “the required Woods File was missing, destroyed, or incomplete.” This is supposed to be America’s premier law-enforcement body.

The IG criticizes an FBI culture that believes it is above the rules, and he devotes an entire section to spanking its leadership for its reaction to the 2020 preliminary findings. While FBI director Christopher Wray instituted some reforms, the agency minimized the findings with statements that “appeared to display a tolerance for error.”

No one has taken responsibility—including Mr. Wray, on whose watch many of these mistakes happened. He has proposed more reforms to the very (Woods) reforms instituted 20 years ago to improve FBI behavior. Sure.

Introducing the Constitution’s independent Article III judges into intelligence collection in the executive branch was always a mistake, as we wrote in the 1970s. The system dilutes accountability for wiretaps, letting the court and FBI blame each other for mistakes and political abuses like those in 2016.

Congress should abolish the FISA court and return authority to the law enforcement leaders making surveillance decisions. Then hold them accountable, including jail time for abuses.




G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Mueller senile?
« Reply #1085 on: October 07, 2021, 02:16:55 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14830
    • View Profile
The war on the rule of law; Andy McCarthy
« Reply #1087 on: October 10, 2021, 10:11:39 PM »
What's behind the rise in violent crime?

Progressive prosecutors not prosecuting.

Andrew McCarthy

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/576078-whats-behind-rising-violent-crime-progressive-prosecutors-non

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1090 on: October 16, 2021, 11:13:08 AM »
Yes
And CNN stepped in to give him a nice job till the Left got power back
and so elephant man Merrick

could essentially pardon this corrupt official


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1093 on: October 17, 2021, 09:36:49 AM »
can't read the whole post

due to subscription needed

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State
« Reply #1094 on: October 17, 2021, 09:45:31 AM »
can't read the whole post

due to subscription needed

Yes, Virginia, There is a Deep State
A major untold story of the Trump era has been the political comeback of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, who thanks to an ingenious marketing campaign now enjoy widespread support among young liberals
Matt Taibbi   17 hr ago   
156

On The Young Turks the other night, during a segment called — this is not a joke — “RebelHQ,” commentator Ben Carollo extolled the virtues of the CIA. In one section, he described how intelligence officials responded to “Donald Trump trying to plan some ridiculous scheme to maintain himself as president”:

It’s not a conspiracy theory to say that these government officials wanted to listen to congress and cared about Democratic norms and respected the constitutional structure of the way the United States is today.

When I first heard Carollo talking about the desire of intelligence officials to “listen to congress,” I thought he was being literal.

Maybe, I thought, he meant that time in 2014, when the CIA spied on the the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into its torture program, wiring up Senate computers and reading staffers’ emails. Or perhaps he meant that time in 2015, when the Obama administration was using the NSA to listen to Israeli critics of his Iran deal, and ended up with “inadvertent” access to phone calls back and forth with political opponents in the U.S. congress, on both sides of the aisle.

Or, maybe Carollo also meant that time when the CIA intercepted communications between the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and congressional staff, about pending whistleblower complaints. As the ICIG put it in one of its declassified notifications, “CIA security compiled a report that includes excerpts of these whistleblower-related communications, and this report was eventually shared with CIA management.” This way, the CIA bosses could know ahead of time who was going to congress with complaints about abuses! Good times.

Alas, Carollo didn’t mean intelligence officials are listening to congress in that sense. His video essay entitled, “Fact-checking Glenn Greenwald’s stunt on Fox News,” was designed to refute the apparently ridiculous notion that “there’s some sort of secret deep state working behind the scenes.” A central part of his argument is that unlike agencies like Homeland Security, formed under the Republican administration of George W. Bush and designed to be “far more shielded from congressional oversight,” the CIA reports to congress and basically does what it’s told.

The agencies with the real power to color outside the lines, Carollo tells us, are DHS-sub-operations, “specifically ICE, and Customs and Border Control,” which “have far less congressional oversight and far less structure in place for there to be those checks and balances.” Because of that, Carollo says, “Donald Trump was more than capable of enacting an extremely racist border policy.”


Even the Pentagon and the defense intelligence agencies are less of a concern, he said, because “when it comes to something like the military, there’s a long history of deep congressional oversight,” and “many checks and balances that are put into place.”

Carollo looks like he’s about six, and I say that fully conceding jealousy over his full head of hair. It’s relevant only because he’s representative of a generation of young, left-leaning intellectuals who grew up in the Trump years believing the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other such agencies to be trusted, straight-and-narrow defenders of democratic “norms.” These credulous kids with piercings and chin-beards who think the secret services are on their side are the fruits of one of the great P.R. campaigns of our time.

Six or seven years ago, “Deep State” was a term you would only see in left-leaning media. Bill Moyers explored the theme on his site from time to time, and when The Nation asked Edward Snowden about it, he said, “There’s definitely a deep state. Trust me, I’ve been there.”

The “deep state” was on the liberal left’s front burner then because a spate of horrendously ugly revelations put it there. We learned via Snowden that the NSA was collecting the communications of people all around the world in secret (Carollo might want to mark down that congress wasn’t informed) in a program the U.S. Court of Appeals just last year declared illegal.

We found out top intelligence officials like CIA chief John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to congress, among other things about the warrantless surveillance program, and got away without perjury charges despite a furious outcry from legislators (another useful factoid for Carollo, on the oversight front). We learned about the CIA’s systematic use of torture techniques, ranging from anal feeding to threatening to rape and murder relatives to induced hypothermia, another fun set of pastimes the agency decided not to burden congress with knowledge of.

Worst of all, we learned Barack Obama and his staff held regular “Terror Tuesdays” meetings to decide who they would and would not kill by secret drone assassination, a program which many Americans were surprised to learn was run not by the military but by the CIA. Obama — who would eventually be quoted joking that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people” and “I didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine” — widened the secret “kill list” to include Americans.

When Trump arrived, it almost immediately became obvious his historical destiny was to be the best thing that ever happened to the secret services. In the same way hydroxychloroquine became snake oil the instant Trump said he was taking it, the “Deep State” became a myth the moment Trump and his minions started saying they believed in it.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
thank you GM
« Reply #1095 on: October 17, 2021, 11:26:58 AM »
"Worst of all, we learned Barack Obama and his staff held regular “Terror Tuesdays” meetings to decide who they would and would not kill by secret drone assassination, a program which many Americans were surprised to learn was run not by the military but by the CIA. Obama — who would eventually be quoted joking that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people” and “I didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine” — widened the secret “kill list” to include Americans."

Obama, a typical leftist

if this was a different age we would already have been wiped out or forced to convert to the Democrat party - the new religion.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20711
    • View Profile
Re: thank you GM
« Reply #1096 on: October 17, 2021, 11:42:16 AM »
"Worst of all, we learned Barack Obama and his staff held regular “Terror Tuesdays” meetings to decide who they would and would not kill by secret drone assassination, a program which many Americans were surprised to learn was run not by the military but by the CIA. Obama — who would eventually be quoted joking that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people” and “I didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine” — widened the secret “kill list” to include Americans."

Obama, a typical leftist

if this was a different age we would already have been wiped out or forced to convert to the Democrat party - the new religion.

They are going as fast as they can!


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12939
    • View Profile
glib lib larry at it again: Trump lawsuit "laughable"
« Reply #1098 on: October 21, 2021, 08:13:07 AM »
partisan Dem weighs in :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/harvard-law-professor-explains-why-080844310.html

“And his argument that there is no legitimate legislative purpose is truly laughable,” Tribe added.


I admit this may be true
partisan Dems will try to use any information to try to come up with legislation that would hurt Republicans.

otherwise , obviously this is a partisan Dem party media show

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 56025
    • View Profile
Jim Jordan on AG Garland
« Reply #1099 on: October 22, 2021, 05:27:51 AM »