Bad News/Good News – Bulk Metadata (FISA) Reauthorization Hidden in Short Term CR / Extended to March 15th, 2020…


All Your Data Are Belong To Us…

The House and Senate are doing what the deep state does so well.  Buried in the final pages of a short term Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund government, the controversial bulk metadata (Call Detail Records) within the FISA program, due to expire on December 15th, is being extended to March 15th, 2020.

(pdf link – House)

As we suspected the intelligence community -and most of congress- wants the reauthorization, even if temporary, prior to the release of a critical IG report on FISA abuse.  That said, a short term extension is the best case scenario when we consider the goal of the intelligence apparatus -writ large- was a permanent reauthorization.

The “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], parts of the Patriot Act, are going to be revisited *AFTER* the report by IG Horowitz.  The new deadline for terminal expiration will be March 15th, 2020.

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  The sketchy programs, and abuse therein, needs more public attention.

(GO DEEP)

Key Dates Highlight Pre-planning of Impeachment Agenda – Pelosi, Schiff, and The Hand-off To Nadler…


There is a lot of rapid information about events worth putting into a calendar context to see the democrat mapping.   David Holmes has just been added to Thursday’s public impeachment testimony (Nov 21st); he will join Fiona Hill.  In essence this rapid addition highlights Schiff on a tight schedule, and his portion ends November 21st, this week.

Additionally today, as expected, it is now reported that Pelosi will take up a short-term continuing resolution (CR) tomorrow to fund government; that will push govt funding to December 20th aligning with the mid-December budget vote plans: Impeach, USMCA and budget).  This intentionally designed delay aligns with Pelosi and House counsel Doug Letter requesting a delay in SCOTUS review of arguments for Trump Taxes.  Everything gets punted to after Thanksgiving; then mid-December they will flood the zone.

However, outside of the House control, Lindsey Graham has announced Dec 11th as the date for Horowitz to testify, which makes the likely FISA report on/around Dec. 2nd.

It’s worth putting it all into a calendar to see how the end of the year is shaping up.

♦Tuesday November 19th – 9 a.m ET: Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the Ukraine usurper on the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, the executive usurper/aide to Vice President Mike Pence will testify.  Then at 2:30pm ET Kurt D. Volker, the former United States special envoy to Ukraine, and Timothy Morrison, a Europe and Russia expert for the National Security Council will testify.

♦Tuesday November 19th – Unknown time, the House will vote a short-term CR funding government until December 20th.  This pushes the budget vote into mid-december. This is all by careful design.

♦Wednesday November 20th – 9am ET:  Ambassador Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, will deliver testimony.  At 2:30pm ET Laura K. Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs, and David Hale, the under secretary of state for political affairs will deliver public testimony.

♦Thursday November 21st – 9am ET: Ms. Fiona Hill, the National Security Council’s former senior director for Europe and Russia (originally thought Vindman was sketchy leaker); and David Holmes, a political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv (just added), will give their public testimony.

Unless something changes, Thursday ends the Adam Schiff public hearing part of the impeachment inquiry; and everything is transferred to the House Judiciary Committee for “official impeachment proceedings”.   This also ends the House legislative session until after Thanksgiving (return Monday, December 2nd).

♦Friday November 22nd –  The DOJ Inspector General closes the “principal review phase” for interests to review the upcoming IG FISA report and provide their feedback for consideration within the report.   The IG then begins to put the finishing details on the report…. we enter Thanksgiving week.

♦Monday December 2nd – Congress returns for the final two legislative weeks of the year.

♦Monday December 2nd – The most likely date for the release of the IG report on FISA abuse, though it potentially could be released on Thanksgiving week.

♦December 3rd – 6th: The House Judiciary Committee, Chairman Jerry Nadler, likely takes over the impeachment hearing agenda. [In the period between November 22nd and December 2nd, the HPSCI will be sending over the Lawfare impeachment report and underlying evidence.]

♦December 9th through December 12th – The final week of the year for the House of Representatives to vote on all of the strategically punted issues.  There will likely be an official impeachment vote in this period; and the “inquiry” will end.  The vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings.

In this final legislative week there are currently three key issues Pelosi will have scheduled as priorities:  (1) The full house impeachment vote to authorize the HJC to conduct the “official” impeachment investigation.  (2) A full house budget vote to fund government through the end of the 2020 election year; and (3) Likely a full house vote for the USMCA.

The USMCA and Budget will be pushed as bipartisan chaff and countermeasures to hide the impeachment authorization vote.  It’s not a final vote to impeach, it is a full House vote to initiate the House Judiciary Committee phase.

♦Wednesday December 11th – Right in the middle of the last House legislative week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be hearing from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Given that the House Judiciary Committee will be tied up with the House impeachment process; and given the nature of the report they would prefer did not have exposure; Jerry Nadler will likely not hear any testimony in the House from Horowitz.

♦Thursday December 12th – the House recesses for the Christmas Holiday.

This is the way things look now…. things can/could change… but that’s the broad outline.

Senator Ron Johnson Outlines Concerns With Lt. Col. Vindman Running Rogue Policy Group Against President Trump…


Senator Ron Johnson, in a letter to Devin Nunes, has provided a lengthy outline of his contacts, discussions and perspectives surrounding U.S-Ukraine foreign policy as it relates to the current democrat impeachment narrative. [Cloud Link to Johnson letter]

Senator Johnson, attended the inauguration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky along with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and shared his concerns that National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was running a rogue and independent foreign policy toward Ukraine expressly against the intents of President Trump.

CTH readers will note we identify Vindman as a very sketchy character within the entire construct of the impeachment fiasco.  It is virtually certain Vindman is the primary source for the CIA ‘whistleblower’ dossier (complaint).  Beyond the rogue Vindman foreign policy, there is an even more sketchy affiliated network that surround him. First, here’s the letter:

Lt. Col Alexander Vindman is likely a central character within the entire impeachment hoax.  As Diana West points out, his connective tissue to the U.S. intelligence apparatus and their rogue efforts to remove President Trump cannot be ignored:

[…] The questions begin with Vindman’s activities as a staffer on the president’s National Security Council. Alarming reports indicate Vindman served as a source for the Ukrainian government inside the White House. This news may be padded by his protectors and muted by our general ignorance of the intelligence wars waged against this country, typically masterminded by the Kremlin, but it’s nonetheless deeply concerning.

Further, given the sophisticated penetration talents of the Russian intelligence services, it’s the height of foolhardiness to assume that Vindman’s Ukrainian connections end in Kyiv.

[…] We need more information about Vindman, his relationship to the Ukrainian government, and whatever “advice” he may have offered it, whether “typically communicated” in English or any other language. That’s because, if The New York Times is accurate, Vindman’s loyalties are divided between two governments. At a minimum, this disqualifies Vindman from serving the American people in the sensitive field of national security ever again.  (read more)

Over time it has become clear the first confidential human source for the CIA Ukraine dossier, written by CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella and also known as the “Whistleblower report”, is Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman a Ukraine expert inside the National Security Council on assignment from the Dept of Defense intelligence unit.

Within his deposition the ideology of Lt. Col Vindman is clear. Vindman’s mission focus was/is to shape U.S. policy toward Ukraine (and by extension NATO) regardless of the actual policy view of President Trump.  Within his deposition Vindman admitted to giving countermanding instructions to his Ukraine counterpart two weeks after understanding opposite policy objectives from his commander-in-chief.

During his deposition Lt Col Vindman also admitted -with considerable angst and attempts to deflect from his legal advisors provided by the Dept. of Defense- that he was intentionally usurping the chain of command in an effort to follow his own ideological agenda; and perhaps that of his DoD leadership.

By itself that level of admitted and direct insubordination should be alarming for many reasons; not the least of which is his lineage within the U.S. Military.  Indeed Vindman’s intent and purpose explains why he appeared for his deposition in full military uniform.

When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.

CIA Agent Eric Ciaramella never delivered his dossier briefing to the upward chain-of-command within the CIA.  Instead Ciaramella subverted the formal process and transmitted his hearsay complaint, derived from material provided by Vindman, directly to principal officials who could assist in the removal of the President.  Again, often we get caught in the weeds, but think long-and-hard about this impeachment process as it is being discovered.

President Trump released the call transcript from an April 21st conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky.  Reporters noted there was a disconnect between the call transcript and a separate summary of the call sent to reporters in April.

[…]  In response to questions from reporters, the White House said in a Friday statement that “the NSC’s Ukraine expert” prepared the April summary.

“The president continues to push for transparency in light of these baseless accusations and has taken the unprecedented steps to release the transcripts of both phone calls with President Zelensky so that every American can see he did nothing wrong. It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said. “This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” he added. (link)

That “NSC Ukraine expert” was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.

In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.

This is not a complex issue.

No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman.  No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature.  Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment.  Yet his command does nothing?

This statement by Defense Secretary Mark Esper doesn’t make a lick of sense.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Monday that an Army officer has no reason to fear retribution for testifying before Congress in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

Esper was asked about potential retribution for Lt. Col. Alexander Vindmanduring a trip to New York City. The defense secretary said the Pentagon “has protections for whistleblowers” who report waste, fraud or abuse.

He said Vindman or any other whistleblower “shouldn’t have any fear of retaliation.”  (read more)

Keep in mind congressman John Ratcliffe questioned Vindman from the perspective of an Article 92 violation {READ IT}, coupled with an Article 88 violation {READ IT}. President Trump, is Lt. Col Vindman’s superior. President Trump sets the foreign policy.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. [Article 88, UCMJ]

Two weeks after President Trump has established an agreement with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, and established the policy direction therein, Lt. Col. Vindman is now giving contrary instructions to the Ukranian government. Vindman’s lawyer recognizes where the questioning is going and goes absolutely bananas:

Here’s the Full Transcript

At 9 a.m. Eastern, tomorrow Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, will be testifying publicly in front of the impeachment committee.

This is one set of Questions and Answers that no-one should miss.

TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2

I would not dismiss this as entirely “fake news”, it’s likely only about 80% inaccurate – and that’s mostly through spin and media shaping.

There’s a solid argument to be made that POTUS is increasingly aware Pompeo is strategically handling him.

[At least attempting to] https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1196502845790597125 

NBC News

@NBCNews

The impeachment inquiry has created the first rift between President Trump and Sec. Pompeo, according to four current and former senior administration officials. https://nbcnews.to/2QuvkZF 

103 people are talking about this

IG Michael Horowitz Will Testify About FISA Report to Senate on December 11th…


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has announced that Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify About the 500+ page FISA report on Wednesday December 11th, 2019.

WASHINGTON – Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify before the Committee on Wednesday, December 11, 2019.

The Inspector General will discuss the findings of his investigation into DOJ and FBI’s conduct during the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant process as it relates to the 2016 presidential election. (link)

Considering the end of the principal review phase on Friday November 22nd; and considering the Thanksgiving holiday of November 28th; this likely puts the publication date for the report on/around Monday December 2nd, with testimony the following week.

It is possible the FISA report release, and the 12/11 Horowitz senate testimony will come at the same time the House of Representatives moves the impeachment inquiry into the House Judiciary Committee.  According to the Pelosi calendar the last day for the House of Representative is Thursday December 12th.

Pelosi December Schedule

Jim Jordan Highlights Four Unwavering Facts That Dispute Impeachment Construct….


Jim Jordan appears on Fox News to highlight four central and unwavering facts that run counter to the Democrat impeachment narrative:

  1. We have the call transcript, there’s no discussion of linking aid to any investigation.
  2. The two principals on the call, President Trump and President Zelenskyy, have both stated there was no linkage of any aid to Ukraine dependent on any investigation.
  3. The Ukraine government had no idea that aid was being held-back pending confirmation of the stable intent -no corruption- within the new Ukraine administration.
  4. President Zelenskyy didn’t announce, didn’t start, and didn’t acknowledge he was going to start any investigation to get the aid released; and it was released without contingencies.

The Supreme Court Halts Lower Court Ruling for President Trump Tax Returns….


The Supreme Court has halted a lower court ruling that granted the Committee on Oversight and Reform access to President Trump’s tax returns.  However, that’s not necessarily the lede.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers. The House issued a subpoena in February for eight years of the president’s tax returns, which the Committee then later argued was part of the September House impeachment investigation.

All of the surrounding court rulings are predicated on accepting a constitutional process for an official impeachment investigation is underway.  However, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will likely challenge that assertion.  To wit, within the buried lede to the background issue we find this paragraph:

On Monday, Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)

The general counsel for the House, Doug Letter, knows that a SCOTUS ruling against the House endeavor could severely damage the legal and constitutional framework of the entire impeachment enterprise.  Therefore it is in Speaker Pelosi’s best interests to instruct Doug Letter to defer or stall a SCOTUS review until the impeachment crew has framed their partisan impeachment process.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the House impeachment process.

There is an important granular aspect to the validity of the House impeachment process that few are paying attention to.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.  The House of Representatives does not want the Supreme Court to hear any case that touches on the impeachment “inquiry”.

In addition to the Trump Tax Case, there is another case from the HJC where they are attempting to use the framework of a constitutional impeachment process as the underlying authority for their endeavors.  That case surrounds the Grand Jury (6e) material from the Mueller investigation.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS or the HJC case in the DC Appellate Court, or SCOTUS, it means there is no constitutional foundation recognized to the “impeachment inquiry.”

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch then: (a) Pelosi/Lawfare have to restart the process with a genuine House vote; or (b) the ongoing impeachment process will have no recognized constitutional standing; and (c) the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote, cast without recognized constitutional standing.

That is why Nancy Pelosi and Doug Letter do not want SCOTUS to weigh in.

BACKSTORY to HJC case: On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.

Additionally, and most importantly, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.  In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”

The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the DOJ “stay” motion.

The DOJ then appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.  The DC Appellate Court heard arguments within the appeal.

Right now; and considering the House voted on a ‘resolution’ to support Nancy Pelosi’s unilaterally decreed “impeachment inquiry”; and due to the lack of structural specifics within the constitution surrounding the impeachment process; I would put the odds at 50/50 the House Judiciary Committee could win this case based on lower court rulings.

It is critical that AG Bill Barr sends his best constitutional lawyers to defend the interests of the executive branch.  The DOJ has a solid constitutional argument to make; and if they end up losing the decision the verbal arguments will be a key factor in whether the Supreme Court would take up the issue (after en banc appeal exhausted).

The HJC objective is simple.  They seek judicial enforcement authority for their subpoenas so their targets cannot legally refuse to give testimony; and by extension the constitutional premise of the House process is affirmed.

The premise for both fronts: (1) document subpoena 6e material, and (2) testimony from White House Counsel Don McGahn, is predicated on penetrating a constitutional firewall that exists within the separation of powers.

Under existing SCOTUS precedent, the White House can be compelled to deliver Executive Branch documents and testimony so long as an official legislative branch impeachment process is underway.

Judge Beryl Howell was the first person in the judicial branch to recognize and accept the HJC position that such an official impeachment process was ongoing.  At the heart of this appeal is that recognition.

If the DOJ can successfully argue the House has not followed the traditional and constitutional process that authorizes impeachment investigation; and allows the HJC to penetrate the separation of power firewall; it will be a major blow to the Lawfare scheme.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would invalidate the narrative of the House.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would also allow the Senate to dismiss any results from Schiff and Nadler’s investigation, because their process would not be predicated on constitutional provisions for impeachment.

In short, this is a pretty important ruling.

Lee Zeldin Discusses House Impeachment Fiasco and Adam Schiff Hiding Testimony to Shape a Narrative…


Representative Lee Zeldin appears on Fox News to discuss the ongoing House impeachment inquiry and how HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff is manipulating the release of transcripts that are adverse to his political agenda.

Custodial Risk in New York City


QUESTION:

Hello Marty,

Your commentary and Socrates’ predictive capacity is ground-breaking. I have been following you for years. Thank you for your time and efforts.
I find it fascinating that the foretold decline of the West (by Socrates) coincides with the fourth-turning demographic study described by Strauss & Howe. Watching it unfold is causing some careful consideration and sleeplessness!

Few questions regarding the future disruption:

1) Could the pledging of negative-yielding bonds as collateral be causing the liquidity problems? As a private lender myself, how can a central bank (or anyone) lend against its par value (even overnight) when held to maturity you receive less than par?
2) What Brokers can protect against a Corzine / MF Global invasion of segregated accounts?
3) I am an Italian national. Do you think living low-key in Panama may be a way to ride out the coming chaos?

I appreciate your insights and opinion.

All the best,
JTK

ANSWER: There is about $17 trillion in outstanding negative-yielding bonds. It is far too complicated to go into great detail on a mere blog post. Suffice to say that the negative-yielding bonds are going to crash like something not witnessed since 1931. While a complete default is not likely prior to 2025/2026, we are going to witness the start of the collapse in 2020. These bonds have been bought by PUNTERS who are just trading them back and forth like a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, a lot of people will get caught holding these new 2.0 versions of financial debt bombs. Nobody is buying these things to actually hold. It is more akin to trading commodities where people are not actually interested in taking deliveries of lumber, hogs, silos of wheat or bars of silver. These are trading instruments only.

 

I strongly urge people to write to the White House and demand LEGAL REFORM in New York City. The entire fate of both the world economy and the domestic economy rests on the integrity of the rule of law which no longer exists. President Trump has the power to address this problem. He could clean house in the SEC and CFTC who will ALWAYS protect the bankers, as is the case in the Department of Justice. The banks have blown up the entire world economy. M.F. Global was using their clients’ money for its own punting and lost big time. Not a single banker was EVER changed, no less Corzine.

GlennJudge Martin Glenn presided on M.F. Global bankruptcy and created the first BAIL-IN without Congressional Authority. He was the first one to engage in FORCED LOANS by abandoning the rule of law to help the bankers and protect Corzine from losses by taking client accounts to cover M.F. Global’s losses. That is no different from what we saw in Cyprus. He simply allowed the confiscation of client funds when in fact the rule of law should have been that the bankers were responsible and M.F. Global’s losses and it should have been reversed. Never should the clients’ funds be taken for M.F. Global’s losses to the NY Bankers.

What Judge Martin Glenn’s ruling warns is you should NOT trust any company based in New York City. No other circuit would uphold what Glenn did to protect Corzine. While Glenn could not prosecute Corzine, the Department of Justice closed its eyes as did the SEC and CFTC. We lack legal integrity and that leaves a COUNTRY RISK that we would have to warn a client about if we were dealing with a third-world country. This is part of the reason China is still lagging behind. There MUST BE a straight forward Rule of Law or capital that cannot invest if there are no definitive rules.

As far as Panama is concerned, it has been one place that people have moved. Another is Thailand if you are looking at Asia

DRUDGE REPORT THE SEQUEL: THE SEARCH FOR MORE MONEY


Drudge knows which side his bread is buttered on–the search for more clicks!

We remember when the Drudge Report played up President Trump’s successes; he was one of the few sites that did. Since August, the Drudge Report has been pushing one negative Trump story after another on the website.

Has Drudge turned on President Trump just like the opportunist Ann Coulter?

It’s starting to look that way. The site’s tone has changed and some days you can’t tell the Drudge Report from CNN.

Has Matt Drudge abandoned conservatism?

Everyone is noticing, so the negative stories are not an outlier.

Christmas Gifts From Amazon

Matt Drudge has sold his conservative soul for clicks and money. In August, the Drudge Report dropped its advertising representative of close to 20 years, Intermarkets, in favor of a new and unknown company, Granite Cubed.

Author and political commentator, Jerome Corsi, has repeatedly tweeted about the shift in coverage, saying Drudge has “lost his mind,” “turned left,” and become a “leftist hack beating [the] impeachment drum.”

The reclusive Matt Drudge is a one man box of mystery,  we may never know the whole truth.

 

Tina

 

Sunday Talks – John Ratcliffe: “The Inspector General is going to have to find that there were things that were done wrong”…


As a reminder John Ratcliffe is one of only four members of congress who has reviewed all of the classified documents that surrounds the current background for the Inspector General report on FISA abuse.  That said, the quoted comment from Ratcliffe, while it will be overlooked by most, is the first visible sign reconciling a fundamental challenge previously highlighted.

In the 2018 IG report on FBI conduct in the 2016 election, the IG stated there was no evidence of any FBI activity being taken for political intents.  Yes, there was a tremendous amount of politically motivated evidence noted within the report; but the top-line statement by Horowitz was counter to the underlying evidence.

A year ago that led us to ask: how could the IG outline political motives in the FISA investigation, if he previously stated there was no politically motivated action by the FBI?

The statement today by Rep. John Ratcliffe seems to speak to this issue.  The implication within the words is that the evidence is so overwhelming the IG has few options.

[2018 IG Report Link]