The Democrats' Horse and Pony Show

Trope Fatigue: Leftist Jews 

Accuse President Trump of 

Anti-Semitic Rants

Today on TruNews we discuss the allegation included in the Justice Department Inspector General’s report detailing that Russiagate’s MI6 Moscow Bureau chief Christopher Steele had a personal and multi-year relationship with Yael “Ivanka” Trump prior to the 2016 election. We also address the hypocritical attacks by the Liberal media against President Trump, calling him antisemitic and a trafficker of tropes for pointing out that there are dual competing factions inside the global community of zionists. Rick Wiles, Doc Burkhart, Edward Szall. Airdate 12/9/19

From today

HOROWITZ REPORT 

RELEASE SETS STAGE FOR 

TENSE SENATE JUDICIARY 

HEARING

Republicans Will Have A Lot Of Questions For The Justice Department Inspector General.

TruNews,

10 December, 2019

The hottest seat in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday will no doubt be the one in which Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is sitting for his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That’s because his long-awaited report on potential abuse of the FISA warrant application process and the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation was released Monday—and the conclusions in that report don’t line up very well with the facts laid out in the 465-page report. Click here to read the entire report: https://tinyurl.com/toqaslc

The Horowitz Report executive summary’s conclusions state, in part:

“We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.

“We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. In most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant . On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh the probative value of the information. Further, the failure to update OI on all significant case developments relevant to the FISA applications led us to conclude that the agents and supervisors did not give appropriate attention or treatment to the facts that cut against probable cause, or reassess the information supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. The agents and SSAs also did not follow, or appear to even know, the requirements in the Woods Procedures to reverify the factual assertions from previous applications that are repeated in renewal applications and verify source characterization statements with the CHS handling agent and document the verification in the Woods File.

“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. FBI Headquarters established a chain of command for Crossfire Hurricane that included close supervision by senior CD managers, who then briefed FBI leadership throughout the investigation. Although we do not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about an investigation, or senior officials to know all the details of cases about which they are briefed, in a sensitive, high-priority matter like this one, it is reasonable to expect that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight, consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility. We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliability of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not.

“In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command. For these reasons, we recommend that the FBI review the performance of the employees who had responsibility for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers and supervisors in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, including senior officials, and take any action deemed appropriate. In addition, given the extensive compliance failures we identified in this review, we believe that additional OIG oversight work is required to assess the FBI’s compliance with Department and FBI FISA-related policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that will further examine the FBI’s compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. This audit will be informed by the findings in this review, as well as by our prior work over the past 15 years on the Department’s and FBI’s use of national security and surveillance authorities, including authorities under FISA, as detailed in Chapter One.”

Democrats were immediately crowing about Horowitz’ conclusions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer held a press conference to celebrate that a “baseless conspiracy” had been debunked. He said:

“For years, President Trump and his Republican allies in Congress and the media have speculated wildly about Deep State conspiracies against his presidency. They’re based on the claim that the FBI opened an investigation into the president’s campaign with political motives. Today we just got a report from the Department of Justice Inspector General that puts these conspiracy theories to rest once and for all. This report conclusively debunks the baseless conspiracy that the investigation into Mr Trump’s campaign and its ties to Russia originated with political bias—let me repeat so that all of those conspiracy theorists out there here it—this report confirms that the predicate for the FBI’s investigation was valid and without political bias.”

Among those apparent “conspiracy theorists” is Attorney General Bill Barr. He clearly did not agree with Horowitz’ assessment of the FISA abuse. He made that abundantly clear in the following statement issued by the Justice Department:

“Nothing is more important than the credibility and integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why we must hold our investigators and prosecutors to the highest ethical and professional standards. The Inspector General’s investigation has provided critical transparency and accountability, and his work is a credit to the Department of Justice. I would like to thank the Inspector General and his team.

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.

“FISA is an essential tool for the protection of the safety of the American people. 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, as well as the thousands of dedicated line agents who work tirelessly to protect our country. I thank the Director for the comprehensive set of proposed reforms he is announcing today, and I look forward to working with him to implement these and any other appropriate measures.

“With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action.”

Specifically, the Horowitz Report referred former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr to the Office of Professional Responsibility. Ohr was directly connected to Christopher Steele and was heavily criticized for the way the Steele Dossier was handled.

Additionally, the report recommended that the FBI should “review the performance of all employees who had responsibility for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers, supervisors, and senior officials in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation for any action it deems appropriate.”

Someone else who has had an interest in Horowitz’ findings is U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham. He issued this statement following the report’s release:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is also a very interested party. At an afternoon press conference, he told reporters he didn’t care what Horowitz had to say about the “predicate” for the Carter Page FISA warrant. He said the bar is set very low for evidence to begin a FISA investigation, but he added that renewals of the warrant were tantamount to a “criminal enterprise” within the FBI:

“Let’s assume for a moment it started out OK. It sure as hell didn’t end OK. I believe there will be no debate among reasonable minded people, particularly warriors, about how the system not only got off the rails, but in my view became a criminal enterprise to defraud the FISA court to deny American citizen Carter Page his constitutional rights and to continue an operation against President Trump as president of the United States that I think was fundamentally flawed and unlawful … if that doesn’t bother you, you hate Trump way too much. On Wednesday, we’re going to have a hearing and we’re going to get the good, the bad, and the ugly.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its hearing with Horowitz Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST.

(Photo Credit: Justice Department Office of Inspector General)

From yesterday

HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ 

IMPEACHMENT ‘TRIAL’ 

DEVOLVES INTO CHAOS

Republicans Peeled Back The Curtain To Expose The Dems’ Dog And Pony Show.

TruNews,

9 December, 2019

As the world awaited the release of the Horowitz Report, Democrats on Capitol Hill were pushing their impeachment effort toward the finish line.

The House Judiciary Committee held a show trial to justify their coup against President Donald Trump, grilling their own attorneys over the evidence that had already been collected. But Republicans pulled back the curtain, exposing the Capitol Hill impeachment circus as nothing more than a dog and pony show—complete with an opening interruption by InfoWars provocateur Owen Shroyer.

The self-described journalist stood up from amidst the cameras at the back of the press area in the midst of Chairman Jerry Nadler’s opening statement. He then accused House Democrats of being the party guilty of treason while being led out of the committee room by two uniformed Capitol Police officers.

The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), attacked the nature of the hearings:

“This committee is not hearing from a factual witness. This committee is not doing anything past hearing from law school professors and staff …

“I think Congress should be held accountable for their oath of office as well and not to do what we’re doing right now, and that is, run a process that doesn’t fit fairness or decorum, to run a process and a fact pattern that you are having to force against a president you don’t like. Well, what was the opportunity? The opportunity came last November when they got the majority and they began their impeachment run. They began the process even as they were selecting the chairman, the chairman said I would be the best person for impeachment …

“You know, today I guess is the movie version of the Schiff report, except one thing. The star witness failed to show up. Mr. Nunes is here. His staff is here. The leading headline is there, ‘Schiff Report.’ But where’s Mr. Schiff? In Mueller, Robert Mueller testified. The Ken Starr report, Ken Starr testified. The author of the Schiff report is not here. Instead he’s sending his staff to do his job for him. I guess that’s what you get when you’re making up impeachment as you go.”

Republican lawyer Stephen Castor, who serves as counsel to the minority staff of both the intelligence and judiciary committees, slammed the Democrats’ impeachment coup, as well. In his opening statement, he chastised Democrats for failing not getting over their loss in the 2016 presidential election:

“The record in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed Congress. To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney. Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because they have evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors but because they disagree with his policies.”

But the hearing was more chaotic than damaging for either side. Republicans frequently made points of order and parliamentary inquiries to demand the introduction of their own witnesses and evidence. And they were particularly incensed by the use of Judiciary Committee Counsel Barry Berke was both a witness and a prosecutor—in a matter of minutes.

When Republicans complained that Burke had violated House Rules by disparaging the president, Chairman Jerry Nadler claimed he was a witness and not bound by rules that pertain to congressional staffers. When Republicans complained the lawyer was not sworn in as a witness, Nadler claimed he was a staffer, so he did not have to be sworn in.

That prompted Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to quip:

“I’ve been in some kangaroo hearings and courts, not my own when I was there, but I have been mistreated in hearings before. But I have never seen anything like this where we don’t allow the fact witnesses to come in here. We have the lawyers come in and tell us what we’re supposed to know about those witnesses and about their testimony and about their impression and what the law is. This is outrageous. My friend Jim Sensenbrenner said in 41 years he’s never seen anything like what we have going on here to try to oust a sitting president.”

The biggest moment of the day came late in the hearing when Republicans finally got to grill House Intelligence Committee Counsel Daniel Goldman. Collins specifically asked him about how his staff got their hands on the phone records of other members of Congress—specifically Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.):

COLLINS — And then you decided to play match game. You found numbers that you thought were like — some of them actually didn’t exist because they claimed that they were for the White House budget office and they were not. So we’re throwing stories out there because nobody was out there. So I go back to my question. Are you going to go on record in front of everybody here today and say that you will not tell who ordered this, you or Mr. Goldman — Mr. Goldman, you or Mr. Schiff?

GOLDMAN — I am going to go on record and tell you that I’m not going to reveal how we conducted this investigation.

Goldman later told another Republican member of the committee that he would not respond to questions about the alleged CIA whistleblower, who has been publicly outed as analyst and National Security Council staffer Eric Ciaramella. He would neither confirm the whistleblower’s identity, nor whether or not his staff had communicated with him—claiming the whistleblower is now irrelevant to the Intelligence Committee’s impeachment report.

That prompted Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) to remind the lawyer that the whistleblower’s complaint against President Trump was the “whole basis of the beginning of this investigation.”

(Photo Credit: The White House)