Citizen Journalists are Popping Up Everywhere to Show the US Media is Intentionally Creating FAKE NEWS


Laughable and Political – Former ICIG Michael Atkinson Releases Ridiculous Political “Statement”….


Everything anyone needed to know about the motives and intents of fired Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson is evidenced by his releasing a political statement tonight protesting his termination.

Atkinson doesn’t write a “letter”, his diatribe is not addressed to anyone, it is just a political “statement” designed to be exploited by the same people, for the same intents, as his prior ICIG work product.  This transparently political effort is ridiculous.

Just as pathetic and political as Atkinson’s statement, is the statement expressed by current DOJ IG Michael Horowitz on behalf of Atkinson:

….“Inspector General Atkinson is known throughout the Inspector General community for his integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight.”…

What makes this Horowitz statement so ridiculous, political and hypocritical, is that only four days earlier IG Horowitz was so alarmed at the gross incompetence of Atkinson that he submitted an interim memorandum noting extreme deficiencies in the FISA work product of Michael Atkinson as legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD.

The DOJ and FBI have an internal FISA self-check mechanism. The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel Michael Atkinson, and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications. One per field office (25 to 30 field offices),which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel Atkinson inspection.

Horowitz detailed 39 examples of Michael Atkinsons’ willful violations of law and policy within 42 “accuracy review” files at the DOJ-NSD. The error rate within the DOJ-NSD files that Atkinson was responsible for was over 93%.

IG Michael Horowitz was so alarmed by the gross incompetence he sent an urgent interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI notifying the Attorney General and FBI Director of the systemic violations discovered.  Two days later the FISA court responded to the IG memorandum by demanding the DOJ/FBI reveal the names of the application targets.

So it is more than a little disingenuous and self-serving for Michael Horowitz to be clutching his pearls about Michael Atkinson getting fired as ICIG, when only a few days earlier Horowitz was raising alarm bells about Atkinson’s gross incompetence in his former position as general counsel for the DOJ National Security Division.

Perhaps Horowitz didn’t think anyone would notice?

Perhaps Horowitz was so assured of MSM providing cover, that he didn’t think anyone would connect the dots from his recent memo on the DOJ-NSD incompetence, to the man who held the job, Michael Atkinson?

Regardless of Horowitz’s anticipatory outlook, the recent IG report outlining Atkinson’s gross incompetence in the FISA scandal, vis-a-vis the 42 DOJ-NSD Accuracy Reviews, is the atomic shield against the political narrative Horowitz, Atkinson and their political allies might attempt to deploy.

Funny that.

RESOURCES:

♦ IG Michael Horowitz report on Atkinson’s gross incompetence HERE.

♦ FISA Court response based on Horowitz’s report of Atkinson’s incompetence HERE.

♦ Details of ICIG Firing & Background Connection to all the above – Available HERE.

National Security Council resistance member Alexander Vindman starts a rumor about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, which he shares with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate)….

Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance ally Mary McCord in her role within the House Intel Committee headed by Adam Schiff….

Ms. McCord then helps Ciaramella create a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint via her former DOJ-NSD colleague, now ICIG, Michael Atkinson….

…And that’s how the impeachment operation was started. (read more)

DNI Richard Grenell Announces Col Thomas Monheim as Acting Intel Community Inspector General…


Acting DNI Richard Grenell announces the replacement for ICIG Michael Atkinson.

Thomas Monheim is a retired Colonel from the US Air Force Reserves and is currently the General Counsel of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Previously, Col Monheim served as Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy General Counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Richard Grenell

@RichardGrenell

Office of the DNI

@ODNIgov

Thomas Monheim has been named the Acting IC Inspector General. Monheim is a career intelligence professional and retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force Reserves who has served our nation in a wide variety of roles throughout his distinguished career.

1,163 people are talking about this

The Fake News – Interesting Review of Who is Who


 

President Trump Removes Coup Plotter ICIG Michael Atkinson – Effective 30 Days From Today – DC Media Conscripts Go Bananas…


…The recent IG report that outlines Atkinson’s gross incompetence in the FISA scandal, vis-a-vis the 42 DOJ-NSD Accuracy Reviews, is the atomic shield against the political narrative….

President Trump has sent a letter to congress giving them 30-days advance notice and informing them of the removal of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson:

The necessary, albeit politically controversial, move comes about two months after President Trump assigned Ric Grenell to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Grenell is ultimately the acting boss of the overall intelligence community. It is likely DNI Grenell provided some key insight into the sketchy background activity in/around Atkinson’s office, and the overall intelligence apparatus writ large.

Additionally, former congressman Mark Meadows is now President Trump’s Chief-of-Staff; and Meadows has been a critic of those within the intelligence apparatus who attempted a soft-coup twice: Once by special counsel (Russia investigation) Robert Mueller; and once by impeachment (Ukraine investigation) using CIA operative Eric Ciaramella and NSC operative Alexander Vindman.

Also, in the recent FISA review by the OIG the DOJ inspector general specifically identified issues with the “accuracy reviews” conducted by DOJ-NSD chief legal counsel.  Who was that former DOJ-NSD chief legal counsel?  That would be current ICIG Michael Atkinson…

Currently, former CIA Director John Brennan is under investigation for his role in the FBI spy operations against the Trump campaign and administration.  Brennan is being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham, an assignment from AG Bill Barr.

Few people have asked why it would take a U.S. attorney to conduct a review of the CIA considering ICIG Atkinson should have been doing that oversight already.  The answer within that non-discussed dynamic points to the reason why Ric Grenell as ODNI was needed.

Intelligence Committee member John Ratcliffe has been nominated for the permanent ODNI role, but his nomination has not been taken up by corrupt Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Chairman Richard Burr.   Ironically, Senator Burr is now under investigation for insider trading related to his divestiture of Wall Street investments prior to the financial collapse due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Additionally, since our original research into ICIG Atkinson revealed he was part of a corrupt deep state effort to cover his own involvement during the FBI operation against candidate Trump, there have been some rather interesting additional discoveries.

The key to understanding the corrupt endeavor behind the fraudulent “whistle-blower” complaint, doesn’t actually originate with ICIG Atkinson. The key person is the former head of the DOJ National Security Division, Mary McCord.

Prior to becoming IC Inspector General, Michael Atkinson was the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division, Mary McCord.

It is very safe to say Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson have a working relationship from their time together in 2016 and 2017 at the DOJ-NSD. Atkinson was Mary McCord’s senior legal counsel; essentially her lawyer.

McCord was the senior intelligence officer who accompanied Sally Yates to the White House in 2017 to confront then White House Counsel Don McGahn about the issues with National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the drummed up controversy over the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak phone call.

Additionally, Mary McCord, Sally Yates and Michael Atkinson worked together to promote the narrative around the incoming Trump administration “Logan Act” violations. This silly claim (undermining Obama policy during the transition) was the heavily promoted, albeit manufactured, reason why Yates and McCord were presumably concerned about Flynn’s contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. It was nonsense.

However, McCord didn’t just disappear in 2017 when she retired from the DOJ-NSD. She resurfaced as part of the Lawfare group assembly after the mid-term election in 2018.

THIS IS THE KEY.

Mary McCord joined the House effort to impeach President Trump; as noted in this article from Politico:

“I think people do see that this is a critical time in our history,” said Mary McCord, a former DOJ official who helped oversee the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and now is listed as a top outside counsel for the House in key legal fights tied to impeachment. “We see the breakdown of the whole rule of law. We see the breakdown in adherence to the Constitution and also constitutional values.”

“That’s why you’re seeing lawyers come out and being very willing to put in extraordinary amounts of time and effort to litigate these cases,” she added. (link)

Former DOJ-NSD Head Mary McCord was working for the House Committee (Adam Schiff) who created the impeachment scheme.

Now it becomes critical to overlay that detail with how the “whistle-blower” complaint was organized. Mary McCord’s former NSD attorney, Michael Atkinson, is now the intelligence community inspector general who brings forth the complaint.

The “whistle-blower” had prior contact with the staff of the committee. This is admitted. So essentially the “whistle-blower” almost certainly had contact with Mary McCord; and then ICIG Michael Atkinson modified the whistle-blower rules to facilitate the outcome.

There is the origination. That’s where the fraud starts.

The coordination between Mary McCord, the Whistle-blower and Michael Atkinson is why HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff will not release the transcript from Atkinson’s testimony.

It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint aka a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Eric Ciaramella to file as a formal IC complaint. This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.

Atkinson’s conflict-of-self-interest, and/or possible blackmail upon him by deep state actors who most certainly know his compromise, likely influenced his approach to this whistleblower complaint.

That dynamic would explain why the Dept. of Justice Office of Legal Counsel so strongly rebuked Atkinson’s interpretation of his responsibility with the complaint.

In the Justice Department’s OLC opinion, they point out that Atkinson’s internal justification for accepting the whistleblower complaint was poor legal judgement. [See Here] I would say Atkinson’s decision is directly related to his own risk exposure:

.

Michael Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to become the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) in 2018. What we end up with is a brutally obvious, convoluted, network of corrupt officials; each carrying an independent reason to cover their institutional asses… each individual interest forms a collective fraudulent scheme inside the machinery of government.

Michael Atkinson and Mary McCord worked together in 2016/2017 on the stop-Trump surveillance operation (FISA application via DOJ-NSD). Then, following the 2018 mid-term election, in 2019 Mary McCord and Michael Atkinson team up again on another stop-Trump operation, each in a different position, and -working with others- coordinate the House impeachment plan via the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint.

HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes was/is focusing more closely on the false statements of ICIG Michael Atkinson as they relate to his involvement.  Overlaying that focus is the contact between the CIA ‘whistle-blower’ (Eric Ciaramella) and the House Intelligence Committee via Mary McCord.

There became a very obvious dynamic that the impeachment construct was manufactured out of nothing.

National Security Council resistance member Alexander Vindman starts a rumor about the Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, which he shares with CIA operative Eric Ciaramella (a John Brennan resistance associate). Ciaramella then makes contact with resistance ally Mary McCord in her role within the House Intel Committee headed by Adam Schiff. Ms. McCord then helps Ciaramella create a fraudulent whistle-blower complaint via her former colleague, now ICIG, Michael Atkinson….

…And that’s how the impeachment operation was started.

Even more recently the inspector general for the DOJ and FBI, Michael Horowitz, reviewed elements of the DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) that directly relate to Michael Atkinson.

The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel [formerly Michael Atkinson], and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications. One per field office (25 to 30 field offices),which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.

Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review. Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself. The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.

However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application. The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.

So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review. The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel. However, the IG found that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.

The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed). These were the FISA files with the greatest possibility of being accurate.  It was specifically Michael Atkinson who held responsibility for conducting former “accuracy reviews” the IG finds were grossly non compliant.

That, current IG memorandum, evaluating the prior performance of Atkinson as legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, now provides evidence to support President Trump saying he no longer has confidence in ICIG Michael Atkinson.  However, in the immediacy of the anti-Trump narratives, almost all media will not see that connection.

Prepare for the egg-on-face when that FISA connection is made…. though it might take a while before that narrative destroying reality bomb is deployed.

All the right people; that is to say all of the political operatives who participated in both of the soft-coup attempts; will now go bananas as President Trump removes ICIG Atkinson for his involvement in the plot.

Senator Chuck Schumer:

Chad Pergram

SSCI Vice Chairman, Senator Mark Warner:

Chad Pergram

House Intel Chairman, Adam Schiff:

Chad Pergram

87 people are talking about this
Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Chad Pergram

Obviously, it took a certain amount of strategic patience to get all the right people into position in order to prepare for the political backlash as an outcome of confronting those political operatives who participated in the coup effort.

The severity of pearl-clutching and teeth gnashing; together with the scale of their apoplexy in reaction to this development; is directly proportionate to their level of participation in the overthrow of President Trump.

The IG report that outlines Atkinson’s gross incompetence in the FISA scandal, vis-a-vis the 42 DOJ-NSD Accuracy Reviews, is the atomic shield against the political narrative.

The collective guilt-driven apoplexy from the deepest part of the administrative state is the one constant in an ever-changing universe….

Oh My, Interesting Ramifications – FISA Court Requires DOJ/FBI To Provide Names of Targets Within Corrupt Surveillance Applications…


Things are getting interesting, potential ramifications are growing, as the FISA Court responds to the latest information from the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

After a review of 29 FISA applications, from eight FBI field offices, the OIG informed the FBI and DOJ that none of the surveillance applications were compliant with the Woods procedures. Meaning zero applications had FBI evidence to support the validity of the claims within the FISA warrants.  That’s a very big problem if those FISA warrants were used to gather evidence used to prosecute the 29 targets of the applications.

In a FISC order released today [pdf here] presiding Judge James Boasberg is ordering the FBI to identify who those targets were; and asking the DOJ to explain what they did with the evidence gathered as a result of the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants.  Big.

[pdf here]

If evidence obtained by execution of a fraudulently obtained warrant was used in the prosecution of any of those targets; there’s a possibility those cases will be reopened.

Considering the twenty nine applications from the OIG go back to 2015, there’s a lot of potential for some downstream consequences not only for those 29 applications, but also for all FBI FISA applications with a similar level of neglect.

In the issue of the Carter Page application the DOJ and FBI were already looking into how far the ripple effects carried.  The FBI was already undertaking a ‘sequestration effort’ to identify the fruit of the poisonous tree; and the results are still unknown.

This order from Judge Boasberg essentially expands that type of review upon another 29 applications and demands the DOJ identify to the court who were the targets.  The court can then, on their own, look and see if any of those U.S. persons were prosecuted in court.

This is a hot mess…. And it is far from over.

You can read Boasberg’s order HERE.

BACKSTORY – The OIG began reviewing FISA applications from eight field offices (the proverbial “rank and file”). The OIG selected 29 FISA applications from those field offices over the period of October 2014 to September 2019. Additionally, every field office and the DOJ-NSD generate internal “Accuracy Reviews”, or self-checks on FISA applications; so the OIG inspected 42 of the accuracy review FISA files to determine if they were compliant.

The results were so bad the IG produced an interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI [pdf link here]. Within the 17-page-memo the IG notifies Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray that all of the claimed FISA processes, in every field office, are grossly deficient, and in most cases there is zero compliance with FISA standards. The IG memorandum is presented before the IG even looks at the specifics of the non-compliance.

Below is the report/memorandum. Additionally I am summarizing the stunning top-lines identified by the IG memo:

  • The IG reviewed 29 FISA applications, surveillance warrants, used against U.S. persons.
  • The 29 FISA applications were from eight different field offices.
  • The FISA applications were from Oct/2014 through Sept/2019.
  • All of the FISA applications reviewed were approved by the FISA court.

The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.

♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]

♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the woods file requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20. Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated. [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20]

♦ Half of the FISA applications reviewed used Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s). The memo outlines that “many” of applications containing CHS claims had no supportive documentation attesting to the dependability of the CHS.

♦ Two of the 25 FISA applications reviewed had renewals; meaning the FISA applications were renewed to extended surveillance, wiretaps, etc. beyond the initial 90-days. None of the renewals had any re-verification. Both FISAs that used renewals were not compliant.

But wait… it gets worse.

The DOJ and FBI have an internal self-check mechanism. The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel, and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications. One per field office (25 to 30 field offices),which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.

Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review. Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself. The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.

However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application. The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.

So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review. The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel. However, the IG finds that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.

The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed). These were the FISA files with the greatest possibility of being accurate. Let that sink in…

Here’s the OIG Report/Memorandum:

Scientific Survey Shows Voters Widely Accept Misinformation Spread By the Media


Re-Posted from Just Facts By James D. Agresti

January 2, 2020

NBC News reporter and political director Chuck Todd recently railed against “misinformation” and singled out President Trump and “the right” for having an “incentive structure” to spread it. Todd, who according to NBC, “is responsible for all aspects of the network’s political coverage,” also stated that Republicans criticize the media for “sport” and “the loudest chanters of fake news” are “the ones who, under a lie detector, would probably take our word over any word they’ve heard from the other side on whether something was poisonous or not.”

Speaking directly to those unsupported claims, a scientific survey commissioned by Just Facts shows that many people are indeed misinformed—but contrary to Todd—this is a bipartisan affair. In fact, the survey found that the most commonly believed misinformation accords with left-leaning narratives spread by the press, and Democrat voters are more likely to accept these falsehoods than Trump voters. Furthermore, sizable portions of Trump voters have swallowed some of these media-promoted liberal fictions, as well as some conservative ones.

The findings are from a nationally representative annual survey commissioned by Just Facts, a non-profit research and educational institute. The survey was conducted by Triton Polling & Research, an academic research firm that used sound methodologies to assess U.S. residents who regularly vote.

While most polls measure public opinion, this unique one measures voters’ knowledge of major issues facing the nation—such as education, taxes, healthcare, national debt, pollution, government spending, Social Security, global warming, energy, and hunger. Every year, the poll includes a new question about a prevalent, controversial issue. This year, it is about poverty.

Results for All Voters

For each question, voters were offered a selection of two or more answers, one of which was true. Voters also had the opportunity to say they were unsure.

On average, voters gave the correct answer 39% of the time, gave an incorrect answer 54% of the time, and said they were unsure 6% of the time. A majority of voters gave the correct answer to only 5 of the 24 questions.

The highest levels of misinformation were found on questions relating to child hunger, tax burdens, poverty, landfills, health insurance copayments, and two elements of Social Security finances. For these 7 questions, 75% or more of voters provided an incorrect answer.

Among 8 of the 10 questions in which the electorate was most deluded, the wrong answers they gave accorded with progressive storylines propagated by the media. Moreover, these answers were often far removed from reality, not just slightly mistaken.

For example, 79% of voters think that the middle class pays a greater portion of their income in federal taxes than the top 1%. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Treasury, and the Tax Policy Center have all documented that households in the top 1% pay an average federal tax rate that is about 2.5 times higher than that of the middle class. More specifically, the latest Congressional Budget Office data on federal taxes shows that on average in 2016:

  • middle-income households paid $10,100 in taxes on income of $75,900, or a tax rate of 13%.
  • the top 1% of households paid $595,900 in taxes on income of $1,789,800, or a tax rate of 33%.

Nevertheless, media outlets commonly report the opposite based on deceptive studies that exclude large portions of people’s taxes and/or incomes. A remarkable 93% of Democrat voters have accepted this canard, as well as 65% of Trump voters.

Results by Age, Gender, and Politics

The survey also recorded voters’ ages, genders, and who they planned to vote for in the upcoming presidential election (Donald Trump, the eventual Democrat nominee, or a third-party candidate). This allows the survey to pinpoint segments of society that are most and least informed about specific issues.

The results show deep partisan and demographic divides, with different groups being more or less knowledgeable depending upon the questions. In total, the rates at which voters gave the correct answers varied from a high of 46% for Trump voters to a low of 32% for Democrat voters, with others falling in between as follows

  • 46% for Trump voters
  • 43% for males
  • 41% for 35 to 64 year olds
  • 38% for 65+ year olds
  • 37% for 18 to 34 year olds
  • 36% for females
  • 32% for Democrat voters

The sample sizes of unsure and third-party voters were too small to produce meaningful data.

The questions, answers, full survey results and methodologies are below.

Education

Question 1: Relative to other nations, how do you believe U.S. fourth graders rank in terms of their reading and math ability? Are they in the bottom 50% or in the top 50%?

Correct Answer: Top 50%. In international tests administered to students in dozens of nations, U.S. fourth graders rank in the top 30% of nations for reading and for math. Confusion about this issue may stem from the fact that the relative performance of U.S. students declines over time, and by the age of 15, they drop to the bottom 50% in reading and to the bottom 20% in math. This suggests that the problems of the U.S. education system may occur in the later years, not the early years, as many have claimed.

Correct answer given by 47% of all voters, 46% of Democrat voters, 48% of Trump voters, 46% of males, 48% of females, 53% of 18 to 34 year olds, 49% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 42% of 65+ year olds.

Question 2: On average across the United States, how much do you think public schools spend per year to educate each classroom of students? Less or more than $150,000 per classroom per year?

Correct Answer: More than $150,000. The average cost to educate a classroom of public school students is about $332,000 per year. In contrast to a drumbeat of media stories decrying education funding cuts, Department of Education data shows that the average inflation-adjusted spending per public school student has risen by more than three times since 1960.

Correct answer given by 36% of all voters, 26% of Democrat voters, 45% of Trump voters, 46% of males, 28% of females, 25% of 18 to 34 year olds, 40% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 33% of 65+ year olds.

Question 3: In your mind, what portion of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. are unqualified for military service because of poor physical fitness, weak educational skills, illegal drug usage, medical conditions, or criminal records?

Correct Answer: More than half. According to various agencies within the Department of Defense, two-thirds to three-quarters of all 17- to 24-year-olds are unqualified for military service because of poor physical fitness, weak educational skills, illegal drug usage, medical conditions, or criminal records.

Correct answer given by 43% of all voters, 37% of Democrat voters, 51% of Trump voters, 44% of males, 42% of females, 40% of 18 to 34 year olds, 46% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 41% of 65+ year olds.

Question 4: When conventional public schools are subject to school choice programs that allow students to leave for private or charter schools, do you think the children who remain in the public schools academically decline?

Correct Answer: No. At least 21 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one of the studies found neutral-to-positive results, and none found negative results. This is consistent with the theory that school choice stimulates competition that helps public schools to improve.

Correct answer given by 46% of all voters, 40% of Democrat voters, 51% of Trump voters, 49% of males, 43% of females, 53% of 18 to 34 year olds, 47% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 43% of 65+ year olds.

Taxes

Question 5: The average U.S. household spends about $30,000 per year on food, housing, and clothing combined. If we broke down all combined federal, state, and local taxes to a per household cost, do you think this would amount to more or less than an average of $30,000 per household per year?

Correct Answer: More than $30,000. In 2018, federal, state and local governments collected a combined total of $5.1 trillion in taxes or an average of $40,000 for every household in the U.S.

Correct answer given by 43% of all voters, 36% of Democrat voters, 47% of Trump voters, 42% of males, 44% of females, 51% of 18 to 34 year olds, 46% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 38% of 65+ year olds.

Question 6: On average, who would you say pays a greater portion of their income in federal taxes: The middle class or the upper 1% of income earners?

Correct Answer: The upper 1%. The Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Treasury, and the Tax Policy Center have all documented that households in the top 1% of income pay an average effective federal tax rate of about 33%, while middle-income households pay about 13%. These tax rates account for nearly all income and federal taxes. Claims to the contrary—often voiced by politicians and the media—are based on misleading calculations that exclude large portions of people’s taxes and/or incomes.

Correct answer given by 18% of all voters, 6% of Democrat voters, 30% of Trump voters, 21% of males, 15% of females, 11% of 18 to 34 year olds, 19% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 19% of 65+ year olds.

Spending

Question 7: Now, changing the subject from taxes to spending, suppose we broke down all government spending to a per household cost—do you think the combined spending of federal, state and local governments amounts to more or less than $40,000 per household per year?

Correct Answer: More than $40,000. In 2018, federal, state and local governments spent a combined total of $6.9 trillion, or an average of about $54,000 for every household in the United States. For reference, the average U.S. household spends about $45,000 per year on food, housing, clothing, transportation, and healthcare combined.

Correct answer given by 48% of all voters, 44% of Democrat voters, 53% of Trump voters, 53% of males, 43% of females, 53% of 18 to 34 year olds, 52% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 43% of 65+ year olds.

Question 8: Do you think the federal government spends more money on social programs, such as Medicare, education, and food stamps—or does the federal government spend more money on national defense, such as the Army, Navy, and missile defense?

Correct Answer: Social programs. In 2018, 62% of federal spending was for social programs, and 18% was for national defense. In 1960, the opposite was true, and 53% of federal spending was for national defense, while 21% was for social programs. Reporters sometimes mislead the public about the composition of federal spending by using a subset of spendingthat omits the vast majority of social programs.

Correct answer given by 36% of all voters, 14% of Democrat voters, 59% of Trump voters, 40% of males, 33% of females, 23% of 18 to 34 year olds, 36% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 41% of 65+ year olds.

National Debt

Question 9: What about federal government debt? The average U.S. household owes about $122,000 in consumer debt, such as mortgages and credit cards. Thinking about all federal government debt broken down to a per household basis, do you think the average federal debt per U.S. household amounts to more or less than the average consumer debt per U.S. household?

Correct Answer: More than $122,000. Federal debt is now $23.1 trillion or about $180,000 for every household in the United States. Such levels of debt can have far-reaching negative effects on wages, living standards, and government and personal financial security.

Correct answer given by 77% of all voters, 76% of Democrat voters, 81% of Trump voters, 75% of males, 80% of females, 84% of 18 to 34 year olds, 79% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 75% of 65+ year olds.

Question 10: From the time that the Great Recession ended in 2009, which do you think has grown at a faster rate, the U.S. economy or the national debt?

Correct Answer: The national debt. From the time that the Great Recession ended in June 2009, the national debt has grown by 100%, while the U.S. economy has grown by 49%.

Correct answer given by 77% of all voters, 89% of Democrat voters, 65% of Trump voters, 71% of males, 82% of females, 76% of 18 to 34 year olds, 77% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 77% of 65+ year olds.

During Obama’s presidency, the party split on this question was reversed, and 88% of Republican voters and 73% of Democrat voters answered correctly.

Global Warming

Question 11: Would you say the earth has become measurably warmer since the 1980s?

Correct Answer: Yes. According to both satellitemeasured data and groundlevel thermometers, the earth’s average temperature has increased by about 0.7 to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1980s. This increase is greater than the range of measurement uncertainty. Providing a sense of scale for this change, a temperature analysis of a glacier in Greenland found that it was about 22ºF colder during the last ice age than it is now.

Correct answer given by 62% of all voters, 94% of Democrat voters, 29% of Trump voters, 57% of males, 67% of females, 83% of 18 to 34 year olds, 57% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 64% of 65+ year olds.

Question 12: Again, thinking about the whole planet, do you think the number and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms have generally increased since the 1980s?

Correct Answer: No. Comprehensive global data shows that the number and intensity of cyclones and hurricanes has been roughly level since the 1980s. This data was originally published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2011 and updated this year. Likewise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported: “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.” Regional data that extends back for more than century shows the same. Nonetheless, media outlets have spread false claims to the contrary by cherry-picking anecdotes and reporting computer model predictions instead of hard facts.

Correct answer given by 32% of all voters, 4% of Democrat voters, 59% of Trump voters, 40% of males, 25% of females, 19% of 18 to 34 year olds, 36% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 30% of 65+ year olds.

Pollution

Question 13: Now, just thinking about the United States, in your opinion, is the air generally more polluted than it was in the 1980s?

Correct Answer: No. EPA data shows that ambient levels of all criteria air pollutants have declined significantly since the 1980s. Criteria air pollutions are those that are deemed by the administrator of the EPA to be widespread and to “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare….” Likewise, combined emissions of hazardous air pollutants have declined by about 50% since the 1990s. Lower pollution levels can improve human health and reduce problems like learning deficits and behavioral disorders.

Correct answer given by 56% of all voters, 44% of Democrat voters, 67% of Trump voters, 67% of males, 46% of females, 47% of 18 to 34 year olds, 63% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 49% of 65+ year olds.

Question 14: If the U.S. stopped recycling and buried all of its municipal trash for the next 100 years in a single landfill that was 30 feet high, how much of the nation’s land area would you think this landfill would cover? Less than 1%, 1% to less than 5%, or more than 5%?

Correct Answer: Less than 1%. At the current U.S. population growth rate and the current per-person trash production rate, the landfill would cover 0.06% of the nation’s land area. More realistically, the actual area in use will be an order of magnitude smaller, because:

  • the U.S. recycles, burns, or composts 48% of its trash.
  • landfills can be more than 200 feet high.
  • after 30 to 50 years, landfills are often covered and used for purposes such as parks, golf courses, ski slopes, and airfields.

Despite these facts, media outlets have been reporting for more than 30 years that the U.S. is “nearly out of space” to dispose of trash. NBC News recently published a series of videos called Wasteland that claims U.S. landfills are “set to reach max capacity by 2030” and “scientists are racing against time to find new ways to hack them for the future.” The video presents no source or evidence to support these statements.

Correct answer given by 7% of all voters, 8% of Democrat voters, 9% of Trump voters, 12% of males, 3% of females, 6% of 18 to 34 year olds, 8% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 6% of 65+ year olds.

Energy

Question 15: Without government subsidies, which of these technologies do you think is the least expensive method for generating electricity? Wind turbines, solar panels, or natural gas power plants?

Correct Answer: Natural gas power plants. Determining the costs of electricity-generating technologies is complex, but data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that natural gas is considerably less expensive than wind, and wind is considerably less expensive than solar. Affordable energy has many important benefits, and for poorer people, it can mean the difference between life and death.

Correct answer given by 40% of all voters, 23% of Democrat voters, 57% of Trump voters, 53% of males, 29% of females, 25% of 18 to 34 year olds, 43% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 41% of 65+ year olds.

Question 16: Without government subsidies, which of these fuels do you believe is least expensive for powering automobiles? Gasoline, ethanol, or biodiesel?

Correct Answer: Gasoline. Data from the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Energy Information Administration show that in 2017, the unsubsidized cost of ethanol was 32% more than gasoline, and the unsubsidized cost of biodiesel was 119% more than gasoline.

Correct answer given by 46% of all voters, 35% of Democrat voters, 55% of Trump voters, 56% of males, 37% of females, 30% of 18 to 34 year olds, 48% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 49% of 65+ year olds.

Question 17: Worldwide, which of these technologies generates the most electricity? Solar panels, natural gas power plants, coal power plants, or nuclear power plants?

Correct Answer: Coal power plants. Due to the low cost and widespread availability of coal, coal power plants generate about 35% of the world’s electricity, as compared to 23% for natural gas, 11% for nuclear, and 4% for solar.

Correct answer given by 40% of all voters, 34% of Democrat voters, 43% of Trump voters, 55% of males, 26% of females, 36% of 18 to 34 year olds, 42% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 36% of 65+ year olds.

Hunger

Question 18: On an average day, what portion of U.S. households with children do you believe will have at least one child who experiences hunger? Less than 1%, 1% to 10%, or more than 10%?

Correct Answer: Less than 1%. Per the latest data from the USDA, 0.14% or less than one out of every 700 U.S. households with children have any child who experiences hunger on an average day. This includes children who are hungry due to poverty, not those who skip meals because they are late for school, don’t feel like eating, or are trying to lose weight.

Media stories claiming that child hunger is much more prevalent often falsely equate USDA data on “food insecurity” with “hunger.” Yet, the USDA explicitly states that “low food security” means “reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet” but “little or no indication of reduced food intake.” Prior to 2006, the USDA’s label for such households reflected this reality and was called “food insecurity without hunger.”

Correct answer given by 12% of all voters, 2% of Democrat voters, 22% of Trump voters, 15% of males, 9% of females, 3% of 18 to 34 year olds, 12% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 13% of 65+ year olds.

Social Security

Question 19: Do you think Social Security’s financial problems stem from politicians looting the program and spending the money on other programs?

Correct Answer: No. By law, all Social Security taxes and revenues can be used only for the Social Security program, and the federal government has never failed to abide by this law. What some call “looting” is actually a legal requirement (established in the original Social Security of 1935) that all of the program’s surpluses be loaned to the federal government. The government is required to pay back this money with interest, and it has been doing this since 2010.

Contrary to the notion that politicians have looted Social Security, they have actually added money to the program by repeatedly raising its payroll tax rate, increasing its inflation-adjusted taxable maximum, and injecting other taxes to its income stream. This has placed progressively higher Social Security tax burdens on successive generations of American workers. Yet, the program is still facing insolvency, mainly because the ratio of workers paying taxes to people receiving benefits has fallen by three times since 1955 and is projected to fall further.

Correct answer given by 20% of all voters, 28% of Democrat voters, 13% of Trump voters, 25% of males, 15% of females, 24% of 18 to 34 year olds, 23% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 15% of 65+ year olds.

Question 20: Some policymakers are proposing that individuals be allowed to save and invest some of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts instead of paying these taxes to the Social Security program. In your view, do you think such proposals generally improve or harm the finances of the Social Security program?

Correct Answer: Improve. As shown by analyses conducted by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and a bipartisan presidential commission, proposals to give Social Security an element of personal ownership generally strengthen the program’s finances. Although some tax revenues that would have gone to the program instead go to people’s personal retirement accounts, these tax revenues are more than offset by the savings of not paying these individuals full benefits. Media outlets like NBC and the New York Times have misleadingly portrayed personal ownership proposals in a negative light.

Correct answer given by 22% of all voters, 11% of Democrat voters, 33% of Trump voters, 28% of males, 17% of females, 31% of 18 to 34 year olds, 20% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 23% of 65+ year olds.

Health Care

Question 21: In 1960, governments paid for 24% of all healthcare costs in the U.S. Do you think governments now pay a greater portion or a lesser portion of all healthcare costs in the U.S.?

Correct Answer: A greater portion. In 2017, governments paid for 49% of all healthcare expenses in the United States.

Correct answer given by 57% of all voters, 42% of Democrat voters, 70% of Trump voters, 62% of males, 52% of females, 46% of 18 to 34 year olds, 57% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 59% of 65+ year olds.

Question 22: When health insurance copayments are high, people tend to spend less on healthcare. Do you think that this reduced spending typically has a negative impact on their health?

Correct Answer: No. Multiple studies have shown that when copayments are high, people generally spend less money on their healthcare without negatively impacting their health. This is because when people directly pay for more of their healthcare bills, they are more likely to be responsible consumers and use only those services that actually benefit their health. An exception to this rule is the poorest 6% of the population, who do experience negative effects when copayments are increased.

Correct answer given by 13% of all voters, 4% of Democrat voters, 22% of Trump voters, 18% of males, 9% of females, 14% of 18 to 34 year olds, 14% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 12% of 65+ year olds.

Question 23: In 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” This law uses price controls to save money in the Medicare program. Do you think these price controls will worsen Medicare patients’ access to care?

Correct Answer: Yes. As explained by Medicare’s actuaries, the price controls in the Affordable Care Act will cut Medicare prices for many medical services over the next three generations to “less than half of their level under the prior law.” The actuaries have been clear that this will likely cause “withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market” and “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”

Correct answer given by 50% of all voters, 17% of Democrat voters, 80% of Trump voters, 53% of males, 46% of females, 38% of 18 to 34 year olds, 52% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 49% of 65+ year olds.

Poverty

Question 24: Including government benefits and private charity, how much worth of goods and services do the poorest 20% of U.S. households consume on average each year? Less than $20,000, $20,000 to $40,000, or more than $40,000?

Correct Answer:

According to the latest government data, the poorest 20% of U.S. households consumed an average of $57,049 of goods and services per household in 2010. The much-lower poverty statistics often cited by the media exclude about 80% of the material resources of the poor because they:

  • don’t account for “noncash benefits, such as food stamps, health benefits, subsidized housing,” and other forms of welfare.
  • are based on government household surveys, and low-income households substantially underreport their cash and noncash income on such surveys.

Correct answer given by 13% of all voters, 6% of Democrat voters, 20% of Trump voters, 13% of males, 14% of females, 15% of 18 to 34 year olds, 16% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 9% of 65+ year olds.

Methodology and Full Results

The survey was conducted by Triton Polling & Research, an academic research firm that serves scholars, corporations, and political campaigns. The responses were obtained through live telephone surveys of 700 likely voters across the U.S. during December 2–11, 2019. This sample size is large enough to accurately represent the U.S. population. Likely voters are people who say they vote “every time there is an opportunity” or in “most” elections.

The margin of sampling error for the total pool of respondents is ±4% with at least 95% confidence. The margins of error for the subsets are 6% for Democrat voters, 6% for Trump voters, 5% for males, 5% for females, 12% for 18 to 34 year olds, 5% for 35 to 64 year olds, and 6% for 65+ year olds.

The survey results presented in this article are slightly weighted to match the ages and genders of likely voters. The political parties and geographic locations of the survey respondents almost precisely match the population of likely voters. Thus, there is no need for weighting based upon these variables. The complete weighted and unweighted results are available here:

DOJ Drops Rosenstein and Mueller’s Nonsense Case Against Russian Company Concord LLC…


Almost everyone who researched the substance behind Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller’s heavily promoted Russian indictments knew the underlying claims were centered on the thinnest of evidence.

A few Facebook memes were used to accuse Russian company Concord LLC of violating FARA and FEC election laws.

In July,2018, Robert Mueller asked a federal judge in Washington for an order that would protect the handover of voluminous evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting LLC, one of three companies and 13 Russian nationals charged in a February 2018 indictment. They are accused of producing propaganda, posing as U.S. activists and posting political content on social media as so-called trolls to encourage strife in the U.S.

Indeed, to an incurious media, a Russian catering company posting Facebook memes might sound like a good justification for a vast Russian election interference prosecution; however, when Concord & the accused Russians show up in court and request to see the evidence against them, well, the prosecutors might just have a problem.  It’s that problem that dogged the Mueller prosecution since 2018.   Today, predictably and finally, the DOJ dropped the nonsense case (full pdf below):

Here’s the Full Filing:

.

The prosecution was always just a farce.  The ridiculous Russian indictments were only created to give some sense of validity to a premise that did not exist; and to allow the Robert Mueller investigation to continue operating when there was never a valid justification for doing so.

This was perhaps the biggest shell game operation, with a non-existent pea, using the DOJ and FBI to give the impression that something nefarious had happened; when factually the ‘Russian Conspiracy Narrative’ was all just one big hoax upon the American people.

The purpose of Robert Mueller was to create something, find anything, that would lead to their political allies being able to remove a sitting president.  Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein participated in that hoax for those intents….

This purposeful fraud has yet to be addressed.

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Wow.

The DOJ moves to dismiss the charges against the Russian Company (Concord) who conducted the alleged “information warfare against the US”

The troll case will be dismissed w/ prejudice.

How embarrassing for Team Mueller.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

You can read the full Motion here:https://www.scribd.com/document/451950605/US-v-Concord 

This case has been quite entertaining. Concord attorney Eric Dubelier has, at time, run circles around Special Counsel and DOJ lawyers.

Starting with his claim that the DOJ “indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.”

View image on Twitter
861 people are talking about this

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Because it’s quarantine time, here are Dubelier’s greatest hits in the Concord case.

In which Dubelier calls Special Counsel Jeannie Rhee a liar.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Concord lawyer Dubelier returns the Concord summons to Special Counsel Rhee because it doesn’t comply with the Federal Rules.

Dubelier: I find it disturbing that “you are already behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with the practices of the DOJ”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
555 people are talking about this

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Sidebar: the Concord case was EXCEEDINGLY dangerous because the DOJ twisted the law to fit these defendants.

The alleged illegal activities: Concord interfered with the FEC’s ability to determine whether “statutes were violated.”

View image on Twitter

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Anyway, what was some of the illegal activity?

Bad memes posted by fake Facebook user “Bertha Malone”

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
464 people are talking about this

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Concord lawyer Dubelier never let up.

From a 10/2018 hearing: “The real Department of Justice” never would have brought this case.

View image on Twitter

Techno Fog@Techno_Fog

Mocking Mueller’s legal theories (partially via Tweetie Bird):

“‘Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself,’ the Special Counsel just did so.”

View image on Twitter
837 people are talking about this

Amid Ongoing Fight FISA Will Lapse – McConnell Hopes to Assemble Vote Next Week, But Trump May Veto…


The House Rules Committee previously released the text of proposed changes to FISA (full pdf).  The “deal” is intended to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  However, key Senators and President Trump say not enough being done to change it.

The current FISA authorities expire on March 15th; it looks like they will lapse as Mitch McConnell tries to regroup for a possible vote next week.  McConnell was forced to delay consideration past the expiration date after Senators Mike Lee (R), Rand Paul (R) and  Ron Wyden  (D) said they would object.

WASHINGTON DC – President Trump told Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Thursday that he does not support a House-passed surveillance bill— raising fresh questions about the fate of the legislation.

A spokesman for Lee confirmed the conversation and that the president told the Utah Republican that he does not support the House legislation. Officials speaking for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have been working to kill the House bill, including urging Trump to veto it if it reaches his desk, over concerns that it does not go far enough to reform the court associated with the Freedom Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). (read more)

The House legislation, negotiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, supports the requests of AG Bill Barr and would renew several provisions the FBI claims vital to fighting terrorism.

The House legislation updates the three expiring surveillance provisions, including one that permits the FBI to obtain secret court orders to collect “business records” on subjects in national security investigations. The main purpose of this section is researching Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) violations. Using the FISA process for anyone suspected of FARA violations is a bucket of deep state horse-poo. It’s essentially an excuse for surveillance of anyone in DC.

Another provision, known as the “roving wiretap” provision, permits surveillance on subjects even after they’ve changed phones. So long as the subjects are “foreign” that’s no big deal. However, if the account owner of the phone is an American…. well, you can see the problem. Again, more sketchy stuff from the DOJ.

The third provision “lone wolf” allows agents to monitor subjects who don’t have ties to international terrorism organizations. This is where any American can be suspected, accused, and with no oversight have secret surveillance authorized by the secret court. The surveillance is retroactive; meaning the warrant allows the DOJ/FBI to find evidence to support the application for the warrant.  Sketchy.

I find myself in alignment with Rand Paul who says the laws should be changed so that *ONLY* foreigners can be targeted by FISA, and for all investigative issues involving Americans the DOJ/FBI should be forced to go to a traditional Title-3 Court to ask for a search warrant or surveillance. This approach is a more reasonable assurance for Fourth Amendment protection.

(Via Associated Press) […] Republicans had been aggressively seeking changes to the law since the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s campaign and Russia, while many Democrats already had concerns about government surveillance.

At the behest of those Republicans, the House compromise takes aim at some of the missteps the Justice Department has acknowledged making during the Russia investigation. Applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide were riddled with omissions and missteps, according to an inspector general report.

The measure would require that officers responsible for FISA applications certify that the department has been advised of any information that could undercut or contradict the premise of the surveillance. In the Russia investigation, some of the information the FBI omitted from its applications cut against the idea that former Trump adviser Carter Page was a Russian agent, the watchdog found.

Page has denied that and was never charged with wrongdoing.

The bill also would institute criminal penalties and other sanctions for making false statements to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which issues warrants to the FBI to eavesdrop on people it has probable cause to believe are agents of a foreign power. It would require the attorney general to approve in writing of an investigation if the target of the surveillance is a federal candidate or official.

Attorney General William Barr was involved in the negotiations with the White House and Congress, and he said Wednesday that he supports the bill.

“It is of the utmost important that the Department’s attorneys and investigators always work in a manner consistent with the highest professional standards, and this overall package will help ensure the integrity of the FISA process and protect against future abuses going forward,” Barr said.

But Barr’s support does not guarantee that Trump is on board. The president kept Congress guessing with a Thursday tweet that did not indicate how he would act. (more)

.

FISA Deal – House Rules Committee Releases Text of FISA Agreement….


The House Rules Committee is releasing text of proposed changes to FISA (full pdf below).  The “deal” is intended to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.

.

(House Rules Link pdf)