<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/fbi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FBI agents</a> were barred by their bosses from investigating <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hunter-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hunter Biden</a>’s damning laptop ahead of the 2020 election, according to whistleblowers who spoke to a GOP lawmaker.
Multiple whistleblowers have allegedly told <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ron-johnson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sen. Ron Johnson</a> (R-WI) that FBI brass told agents they would not allow a laptop probe to influence the presidential election. Revelations from the abandoned laptop, which were also squelched by social media companies and liberal news outlets, paint the president’s son as a drug-addled, venal degenerate and raise troubling questions about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/joe-biden-spoke-with-hunter-about-dealings-with-chinese-oil-tycoon-voicemail-reveals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">President Joe Biden’s own role in his son’s corrupt dealings</a>.
“After the FBI obtained the Hunter Biden laptop from the Wilmington, DE computer shop, these whistleblowers stated that local FBI leadership told employees, &#8216;you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop,'&#8221; Johnson <a href="https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/7CD44E16-BF0B-495E-8B87-900467F69E50">wrote in the letter</a> sent Tuesday to Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
John Paul Mac Isaac was right. The FBI warned agents not to touch Hunter Biden’s laptop after he gave it to them in Dec. 2019. That was why he felt compelled to go public 9 months later. FBI whistleblowers spilling more dirt to ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenRonJohnson</a> <a href="https://t.co/PIlThWB68F">https://t.co/PIlThWB68F</a>
&mdash; Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) <a href="https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/1562601996376363009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 25, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Johnson described the whistleblowers as &#8220;individuals with knowledge of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hatchet-men-pursuing-political-agenda-why-the-fbi-is-due-for-radical-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FBI’s apparent corruption</a>” who had reached out to his office. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), has said at least 14 <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/jim-jordan-explains-the-14-fbi-whistleblowers-frankly-we-anticipate-more/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">whistleblowers</a> from within the FBI have contacted his office with information about the bureau’s handling of the investigations of conservative parents pressing for local school board reforms and the January 6 Capitol riot.
The laptop, which Hunter Biden abandoned at a computer repair shop, is believed to have been in the possession of the FBI since late 2019, more than a year before the election. The New York Post broke the story several weeks before the election, and other conservative media outlets followed suit with stories about the lurid photos, messages and videos on the laptop. But the liberal media, including The New York Times and Washington Post, dismissed the story as “Russian disinformation,” and Twitter even banned the New York Post for reporting on it.
Since then, those same media outlets have acknowledged the authenticity of the laptop, which contains photos of Hunter Biden naked and smoking crack, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/vindictive-moron-vile-texts-reportedly-show-hunter-bidens-disdain-for-first-lady-jill-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unseemly discussions about his family</a> and sexual activities, and references to the role of “the Big Guy” in corrupt dealings with foreign entities. The “Big Guy” has been named by former <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/death-row-or-wanted-for-murder-the-cursed-lives-of-hunter-bidens-associates" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hunter Biden associate Tony Bobulinski</a> as Joe Biden.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/christopher-wray" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FBI Director Christopher Wray</a> told lawmakers earlier this month that he could not comment on what, if anything, the bureau is doing regarding the laptop. But he said he found reports that the bureau refused to pursue a laptop investigation ahead of the election &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-head-wray-found-reports-on-improperly-dismissed-hunter-biden-info-deeply-troubling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deeply troubling</a>.&#8221;
Johnson called on Horowitz to investigate why the bureau, which is part of the DOJ, has apparently refused to investigate the laptop.
&#8220;I hope you understand that the longer your office stands on the sidelines and delays investigating the FBI&#8217;s actions, the harder it will be for you to uncover the truth and hold individuals accountable for wrongdoing,&#8221; Johnson wrote. &#8220;The American people deserve transparency and expect allegations of government corruption to be fully and immediately investigated.&#8221;
Last month, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/highly-credible-fbi-whistleblowers-describe-concerted-effort-to-scuttle-negative-hunter-biden-stories-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sen. Chuck Grassley</a> (R-IA), <a href="https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_justice_deptfbipoliticalbiasfollowup.pdf">wrote a letter</a> to Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland saying &#8220;highly credible whistleblowers&#8221; had claimed that the FBI and Justice Department covered up &#8220;verified and verifiable&#8221; information on Hunter Biden in the months preceding the election.

Joe Biden Hunter

FBI Brass Barred Agents From Probing Hunter’s Laptop, Whistleblowers Tell Lawmaker

FBI Brass Barred Agents From Probing Hunter's Laptop, Whistleblowers Tell Lawmaker

2020 Election

Hunter Biden

laptop computer

Michael Horowitz

Ron Johnson

Ten Senate Democrats, including Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), have <a href="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/1/71582e65-782c-4139-817f-3fa1fc1df28c/5E2041DDB0B0A64698760418CFF9360F.durham-investigation-letter.pdf">signed a letter</a> written to the inspector general of the Justice Department calling for an investigation into the investigation of the origins of the FBI&#8217;s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. 
The official letter, addressed to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, cites several recent media reports that the Democratic senators say suggest that the Durham investigation is being used for partisan politics. 
“We write to request that you investigate whether U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation complies with Department of Justice policies, including policies that protect criminal investigations from political influence,” wrote the Senate Democrats in the letter to Horowitz. “The Department’s mission ‘to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans’ requires that its prosecutorial decisions be insulated from political influence. To that end, longstanding rules restrain Department personnel from publicly commenting on public investigations, taking actions that may affect an upcoming election, and communicating with the White House about ongoing criminal investigations.”
The letter cites three specific examples, including a report from the Hartford Courant that a former top assistant to Durham recently resigned over concerns of political influence, and a comment from Attorney General William Barr suggesting that the Durham investigation would yield “significant developments” before the general election in November. 
“These actions suggest that the Durham investigation is being misused for partisan political purposes and undermine the legitimacy of any investigative steps Mr. Durham takes,” the letter continued. “In addition, it remains unclear what rules and authority permit the public release of a ‘report’ by U.S. Attorney Durham, raising additional concerns about the legitimacy of his appointment and work.”
According to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kamala-harris-calls-for-inspector-general-investigation-of-john-durhams-russia-inquiry">The Washington Examiner</a>, the Democrats’ letter also cited a comment from White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who said that based on documents he’s seen, the Durham investigation would prove troublesome for Obama administration officials who were “willing to participate in an unlawful act, and I use the word unlawful at best. It broke all kinds of protocols, and at worst, people should go to jail.”
The Democratic letter concludes: &#8220;We therefore request that your office investigate whether the Durham investigation has operated consistent with Department rules governing the appointment of U.S. Attorneys and the Department rules on public statements concerning pending investigations, taking action that may impact an upcoming election, and White House-Department communications concerning pending criminal investigations.&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/attorney-general-william-barr-gives-update-on-criminal-charges-in-durham-investigation">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, Barr told Fox News in August that “the American people need to know what actually happened, we need to get through the story of what happened in 2016 and 2017, now, out.&#8221;
“The second aspect of this is, if people crossed the line, if people involved in that activity violated the criminal law, they will be charged,” Barr continued. “And John Durham is an independent man, highly experienced, and his investigation is pursuing apace. There was some delay because of COVID, but I’m satisfied with the progress, and I’ve said there are going to be developments, significant developments, before the election, but we’re not doing this on the election schedule.”
“We’re aware of the election, we’re not going to do anything inappropriate before the election, but we’re not being dictated to by this schedule. What’s dictating the timing of this are developments in the case, and there will be developments. Tomorrow, there will be a development in the case – it’s not an Earth-shattering development, but it is an indication that things are moving along at the proper pace as dictated by the facts in this investigation,” Barr concluded. “When we feel we can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be charged, I can tell you that.”

US-politics-VOTE-health-virus-HARRIS

Kamala Harris And 9 Other Dems Call For Investigation Into Durham Investigation

John Durham

The FBI routinely violates its own procedures when applying for warrants to spy on American citizens, a new <a href="https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf">report</a> from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found.
In a memo dated March 30, Inspector General Michael Horowitz followed up on an earlier report from December 2019, which found the FBI violated its own procedures when obtaining Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Carter Page, a former adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
The OIG found that the FBI violated what’s known as the Woods Procedures, which were implemented in 2001 “following errors in numerous FISA applications submitted to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] in FBI counterterrorism investigations.” The Woods Procedures are meant to “minimize factual inaccuracies in FISA applications and to ensure that statements contained in applications are ‘scrupulously accurate,’&#8221; Horowitz wrote.
After its massive report late last year, which found 17 “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ig-report-here-are-the-17-specific-inaccuracies-and-omissions-in-the-fbis-fisa-warrants-against-carter-page">inaccuracies and omissions</a>” that led to Page getting spied on by his own government when he had done nothing wrong, Horowitz led a team to look into other FISA applications to see if violating the Woods Procedures was routine. It turns out, it was:
<blockquote>Our lack of confidence that the Woods Procedures are working as intended stems primarily from the fact that: (1) we could not review original Woods Files for 4 of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has not 3 been able to locate them and, in 3 of these instances, did not know if they ever existed; (2) our testing of FISA applications to the associated Woods Files identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed, and interviews to date with available agents or supervisors in field offices generally have confirmed the issues we identified; (3) existing FBI and [National Security Division] oversight mechanisms have also identified deficiencies in documentary support and application accuracy that are similar to those that we have observed to date; and (4) FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy, to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process, or increased accountability measures.</blockquote>
Horowitz’s memo, however, did not make “judgments about whether the errors or concerns we identified were material” nor did it speculate as to whether the potential errors influenced the decision to approve the FBI’s FISA applications in those cases.
“Nevertheless, we believe that a deficiency in the FBI’s efforts to support the factual statements in FISA applications through its Woods Procedures undermines the FBI’s ability to achieve its ‘scrupulously accurate’ standard for FISA applications,” Horowitz wrote.
The memo also stated that FBI officials told OIG investigators that corrective actions or training may take place at field offices based on the results of its reviews, yet Horowitz noted no such training exists at the FBI headquarters.
The memo stated the OIG will conduct further investigations into the deficiencies of the FBI FISA applications and their renewals, as this investigation is just preliminary and took place over two months. The OIG recommended the FBI regularly review its past cases to determine if there were any violations of the Woods Procedures and conduct “a physical inventory to ensure that Woods Files exist for every FISA application submitted to the FISC in all pending investigations.”
In response to the memo, FBI Associate Deputy Director Paul Abbate accepted Horowitz’s findings and said the bureau is still implementing the corrective measures it announced after the December 2019 report. It also noted the OIG’s own deficiencies in its memos relating to examining complete files and whether evidence supported the allegations in the FISA applications.

FBI agent

It Wasn’t Just Trump, Inspector General Finds FBI Routinely Violates Procedures In FISA Warrant Applications

FISA

According to The Washington Post&#8217;s unnamed sources, the Justice Department investigation into alleged Clinton-involved corruption launched over two years ago by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions is winding down — and likely to disappoint Donald Trump and everyone else hoping to see &#8220;Lock Her Up!&#8221; come to fruition.
In yet another report that tips the establishment media&#8217;s partisan hand, the U.S. Attorney John Huber-led investigation, launched &#8220;to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton,&#8221; as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-winds-down-clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/2020/01/09/ca83932e-32f9-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html">the Post</a> puts it, &#8220;has effectively ended with no tangible results.&#8221; The Post provides some background on the investigation:
<div class="teaser-content">
<section>
<div>
<blockquote>
John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.
</blockquote>
</div>
</section>
</div>
<div class="remainder-content">
<section>
<blockquote>
<div>
As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
In the end, the Post&#8217;s sources say, Huber is likely going to recommend &#8220;no criminal charges&#8221; and the investigation will result in &#8220;no other known impacts,&#8221; a conclusion that the Post predicts will likely &#8220;roil some in the GOP who had hoped the prosecutor would vindicate their long-held suspicions about a political rival.&#8221;
Current and former unnamed law enforcement officials told the left-leaning outlet that they &#8220;never expected the effort to produce much of anything,&#8221; the Post notes. In other words, officials felt much the same way about the Huber investigation as Republicans felt about the Robert Mueller &#8220;Russia collusion&#8221; investigation, which likewise took two years and ended up burning up $30 million taxpayer dollars to look into a claim largely based on a DNC and Clinton campaign-funded opposition research document that including on-their-face absurd accusations from foreign sources.
The reality is that the investigation has largely fallen off Trump and Republicans&#8217; radars. The real focus on the right now is on the damning results of the Michael Horowitz investigation into the origins of the FBI probe of the Trump campaign for the Mueller-debunked &#8220;collusion&#8221; conspiracy theory and the bureau&#8217;s handling of the Clinton email probe, as well as the upcoming report by John Durham, which has turned into a &#8220;<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-durham-investigation-fbi-misconduct-criminal-probe">full-fledged criminal investigation</a>&#8221; and, as the Post acknowledges, Justice Department officials believe will be &#8220;far more consequential.&#8221;
</div>
<div>
<div class="cb bg-offwhite mt-xxs pad-top-md pad-bottom-md mb-lg ml-neg-gutter mr-neg-gutter mr-auto-ns ml-auto-ns dn db-ns relative" data-qa="article-body-ad">
<div class="relative z-1">
<div class=" ">
In his lengthy report on the origins of the FBI&#8217;s surveillance of the Trump campaign, Intelligence Community Inspector General Horowitz identified &#8220;at least 17 significant errors or omissions&#8221; by the FBI in its FISA surveillance applications into Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and &#8220;many additional errors in the Woods Procedures.&#8221; The report also found that the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, funded by Democrats and the Clinton campaign, &#8220;played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order&#8221; to surveil Page.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-check-republicans-famous-memo-on-fisa-abuse-blasted-by-democrats-ended-up-getting-it-mostly-right">WaPo Admits: Republicans’ Famous Memo On FISA Abuse Blasted By Dems Ended Up Getting It Mostly Right</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>

Hillary Clinton

Report: Justice Department Closing Out Clinton Corruption Probe, Will Disappoint Trump

Donald Trump

Washington Post

On Thursday, Washington Post Media Critic Erik Wemple <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/">slammed</a> far-left MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, claiming that she &#8220;seemed to be rooting&#8221; for the veracity of the now-infamous Steele Dossier before the document&#8217;s credibility ultimately &#8220;fell apart.&#8221;
&#8220;Name a host on cable news who has dug more deeply into Trump-Russia than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow,&#8221; Wemple wrote. &#8220;She’s read hundreds, maybe thousands, of court filings; she’s read the plume of literature on Russia-Trump; and she’s out with a new book on the bane of petro-states: &#8216;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525575472/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=slatmaga-20&amp;creative=9325&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;creativeASIN=0525575472&amp;linkId=2a858da9155bc9edba3471d6ec9df3bb" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="36">Blowout: Corrupted Democracy, Rogue State Russia, and the Richest, Most Destructive Industry on Earth</a>.'&#8221;
Wemple, entering the realm of full-on snark, then excoriated Maddow&#8217;s self-obsessed &#8220;Russianist phase.&#8221;
&#8220;As part of her Russianist phase, Maddow became a clearinghouse for news increments regarding the dossier,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Just days after BuzzFeed published the dossier in its entirety, she reported on the frustration of congressional Democrats with then-FBI Director James B. Comey, who was declining to divulge whether his people had opened an investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.&#8221;
Wemple systematically walked the reader through a timeline of Maddow&#8217;s on-air reporting from 2017–2018, during which Maddow repeatedly glommed onto snippets of left-leaning reporting to tendentiously give off the impression to MSNBC viewers that the dossier was something other than the salacious rumormongering that Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General has since confirmed it indeed was.
Wemple continued to describe the release of former DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s eponymous report on 2016 Russian electoral interference as a &#8220;kick in the derrière&#8221; for those who were invested in the Steeler dossier&#8217;s overarching narrative of nefarious Trump-Russia collusion.
&#8220;The release of the Mueller report in April provided a kick in the derriere for backers of the dossier. 
Wemple wrote. &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/?tid=lk_inline_manual_40" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="116">As Glenn Kessler pointed out in The Post</a>, the central allegation of the dossier — an &#8216;extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the U.S.&#8217; as well as an &#8216;agreed exchange of information established in both directions&#8217; — found no corroboration from Mueller’s investigation, even though the special counsel’s team was charged with probing just this matter.&#8221;
But Maddow didn&#8217;t seem to care for the Mueller&#8217;s report dismissal of the dossier, Wemple opined.
&#8220;Several days after the Mueller report emerged, Maddow addressed not the dissonance between Mueller and the dossier, but a point of possible corroboration,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;In perhaps its most famous allegation, the dossier claimed that Trump had rented a suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow and &#8217;employed&#8217; prostitutes to perform a perverted ritual for him. It suggested that there were tapes of the show, the better to amass kompromat against Trump. A <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Muelller-Report-Redacted-Vol-II-Released-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf#page=32" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-reader-unique-id="130">footnote</a> in the Mueller report, noted Maddow, bore a possible connection to this part of the dossier.&#8221;
Wemple concluded by comparing the relative merits of the &#8220;case for Maddow&#8221; and the &#8220;case against Maddow,&#8221; and concluding that the latter is &#8220;far stronger.&#8221;
&#8220;The case against Maddow is far stronger,&#8221; Wemple stated. &#8220;When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for the document.&#8221;
Ouch.

Rachel Maddow

Washington Post Media Critic Blasts Rachel Maddow Over Steele Dossier

2016 Election

Department of Justice

Leftism

Media

Media Bias

Russia

On Thursday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about how, even though the Democrats have disgraced themselves with impeachment, the country is still going strong. Video and partial transcript below: 

This has been a really amazing week, in a lot of ways. It&#8217;s been full of so much misconduct and dishonesty, and yet it&#8217;s kind of hopeful at the same time. The Democrats truly have disgraced themselves, pushing forward with their impeachment charade in spite of the fact their hearings have turned up not a single crime and the public is clearly rejecting the entire scheme.
And at the same time, the media once again, through its integrity, &#8230; [has] attempt[ed] to distort and disguise the massively damning truth of the Horowitz report, which in revealing the outlandish misuse of power by the Obama administration&#8217;s FBI, also revealed the outlandish receptiveness of the mainstream press that covered up for it. 
Watching the Democrats behave in a way that is genuinely harmful to the country, and watching the press not only lie about their actions, but lie about the fact that they lied about their actions before, it would be easy to lose hope. It would be easy to say that they’re so infested with freedom haters, and they&#8217;re so protected by the media&#8217;s cloud of mendacity, no good can come of it. And yet you can&#8217;t help getting the feeling that good may be coming from it, that the public is getting wise, that the narrative is turning toward the truth, and that as with Rudy Giuliani&#8217;s mayoralty in New York and Ronald Reagan&#8217;s American presidency, the sheer success of Trump&#8217;s pro-American enterprise is slowly overcoming the widespread power of the Left&#8217;s empire of lies. 
As I&#8217;ve often said, conservatives are like doctors. Ours is a noble but tragic business. We&#8217;re trying to conserve a living thing: American liberty. And like all living things, liberty will one day die. But not today. 
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Td7csrdNE6s?start=134" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Today, we [are] coming up on 200 new Constitution-loving judges in the federal courts, we have an attorney general who will withstand criticism to protect our civil liberties from a rampaging Deep State. Today, our fellow citizens of every color have jobs to give them support and dignity, and the economy-destroying socialists and climate hysterics are largely powerless. Today, we have a president who moved to protect our fellow citizens who are Jews, who are always the canaries in the coal mine of oppression. 
Every day [that] conservatism wins, every day [that] liberty lives, another child is born free, another life is completed in freedom. And all of us are handed another chance to keep the republic going for yet another day more. With a sense of tragedy and sense of humor and just enough courage to get by, it really is amazing how much shenanigans we can endure and how much good we can accomplish. Personally, I&#8217;m grateful to be even a small part of the fight. I&#8217;m grateful I wasn&#8217;t born in chains, I&#8217;m grateful that every time in my life the West has attempted suicide, we held the gun to our head, pulled the trigger and missed. Go figure. 
The Left has done its worst this week and has been exposed for having done even worse before now. Yet here we are, and it&#8217;s a good day to be free. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Faces of American Presidents, South Dakota

KLAVAN: It’s A Good Day To Be Free

Democratic Party

Impeachment

One section of the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) <a href="https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/120919-examination.pdf">report</a> that hasn’t gotten as much attention highlights how the FBI not only altered evidence against one-time Trump campaign aide Carter Page, but also ignored exculpatory evidence to continue obtaining FISA warrants against him.
The FBI had believed Page was a foreign agent working with the Russians to help Donald Trump steal the 2016 election. In reality, Page had previously worked with an unnamed U.S. intelligence agency dealing with Russians for years at the beginning of the Obama administration. After the FBI started surveilling Page, he made several public statements about his past role as an asset for the intelligence community.
It wasn’t until the third FISA application, however, that the FBI apparently learned this was the case. Instead of realizing that the basis for their application was always bogus, they doubled down and simply omitted that information from the third FISA renewal application.
Near the middle of the IG report, a text message exchange between a person identified only as “SSA2,” who would be the affiant on the third renewal application, and someone identified only as “OGC Attorney,” who is believed to be FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith. The two went back and forth about whether Page was, indeed, working for another U.S. agency. At one point Clinesmith claimed this agency “confirmed explicitly [Page] was never a source.” He then told SSA2: “I mean, at least we don’t have to have a terrible footnote.”
SSA2 pushes back saying it was “interesting” this agency claimed Page was not a source, considering what the agency had written.
IG Michael Horowitz’s team spoke to Clinesmith about this exchange. He claimed his statement about being “explicitly” told Page was not a previous asset was meant as “shorthand” and that he had no reason to use the word “explicitly,” as he had been told no such thing. He claimed the message about a “terrible footnote” was in reference to the “laborious” process it would take to add such a footnote to the FISA application and claimed it had nothing to do with whether that footnote would completely undermine the application.
SSA2 felt differently. This person told Horowitz’s team that he took Clinesmith’s use of the word “explicitly” to be “the confirmation that I need[ed]” to report that Page had never been a source. Further, SSA2 told the IG that he believed the “terrible footnote” comment to mean they would be able to avoid having to explain in the renewal application that the FBI had “just now come to determine that [Page] was an asset of the [other agency] and probably being tasked to engage … [with] Russians which is … why we opened a case on him.”
SSA2 went on to tell the IG that “the optic” of such a footnote “would be terrible.”
Clinesmith, readers may recall, is the one who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-fbi-altered-evidence-that-falsely-cast-carter-page-as-russian-spy-report-says">altered an email</a> from the other U.S. intelligence agency that said Page did have a previous working relationship with them. Clinesmith inserted the words “not a source” into the email to make it appear as though a liaison from the other agency had said Page was “not a source.” Clinesmith sent this email to SSA2 and the FISA application was granted.
When Horowitz testified before the Senate on Wednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered his own explanation for why this information about Page was omitted.
“What does that matter?” Graham said. “Because if the court had known, then there is a lawful reason for Mr. Page to be talking to the Russian guy. He wasn’t working against his country. He was working with his country, which undercuts the idea he is a foreign agent. That’s why <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/kevin-clinesmith/">Clinesmith</a> lied: because he didn’t want to stop this investigation.”

Carter Page

When FBI Learned Carter Page Had Been Working With CIA It Ignored That Info To Get Another FISA Warrant

A portion of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz&#8217;s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the FBI&#8217;s misconduct in surveilling the Trump campaign during the 2016 election went overlooked by many in the media on Wednesday, as Horowitz was able to make a critical distinction about political bias during different phases of the FBI&#8217;s investigation.
During his testimony, Horowitz repeatedly made a clear distinction that he was able to say with certainty that he found no evidence that the opening of the investigation was motivated by political bias, but that from that point on it became &#8220;murkier&#8221; with the way the FBI handled the FISAs to the point where political bias could not be ruled out.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Horowitz, &#8220;Is it correct that you found no evidence that the investigation was motivated by anti-Trump or political bias, is that correct?&#8221;
&#8220;We found no evidence that the initiation of the investigation was motivated by political bias,&#8221; Horowitz answered before quickly adding, &#8220;It gets murkier — the question gets more challenging, senator, when you get to the FISA and when you get to the attorney’s actions, for example, in connection with that FISA.&#8221;
During an exchange with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, Horowitz revealed that political bias could not be ruled out as a reason why the FBI engaged in numerous instances of misconduct against the Trump campaign.
&#8220;They have a duty to report to their supervisors and the court exculpatory information?&#8221; Graham asked.
&#8220;Absolutely,&#8221; Horowitz answered.
&#8220;They did not?&#8221; Graham asked.
&#8220;They did not,&#8221; Horowitz replied.
&#8220;Why?&#8221; Graham asked.
&#8220;That’s the question I can’t specifically answer for you,&#8221; Horowitz answered.
&#8220;Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?&#8221; Graham asked.
&#8220;On decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind at this point,&#8221; Horowitz responded.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
IG Michael Horowitz testifies that political bias did not motivate the *initiation* of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign but that “it gets murkier” after that when dealing with the FISAs, adding he can’t rule out political bias in the FBI’s misconduct during the probe <a href="https://t.co/aovq8U8mJC">pic.twitter.com/aovq8U8mJC</a>
&mdash; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1205063213567508480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In the IG report, Horowitz wrote on six occasions that the FBI&#8217;s requirement that investigations must have adequate factual predication before being initiated is based on a &#8220;low threshold.&#8221;
The IG report outlined 17 “inaccuracies and omissions” that were not brought to the attention of the Office of Intelligence prior to the fourth and last FISA application being filed in June 2017:
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote>Omitted information from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,” which overstated the significance of Steele’s past reporting and was not approved by Steele’s FBI handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who, as previously noted, was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a “boaster” and an “egoist” and “may engage in some embellishment” and (2) [redacted]</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article, based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and [Fusion GPS Founder Glenn] Simpson; this premise was factually incorrect (Steele had provided direct information to Yahoo News) and also contradicted by documentation in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Omitted Papadopoulos’s statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like WikiLeaks in the release of emails;</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Omitted Page’s statements to an FBI CHS [Confidential Human Source] in August 2016 that Page had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page’s emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Steele’s Report 95 that Page was participating in a “conspiracy” with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Selectively included Page’s statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Steele’s Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
Read the remaining 10 inaccuracies and omissions <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ig-report-here-are-the-17-specific-inaccuracies-and-omissions-in-the-fbis-fisa-warrants-against-carter-page">here</a>.

MICHAEL HOROWITZ

Portion Of Horowitz Testimony Gets Overlooked By Media, Provides Possible Insight Into FBI’s Investigation Into Trump Campaign

Lindsey Graham

Justice Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz confirmed during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the FBI used fraudulent evidence that it created as the basis for a sworn statement to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it used to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application to surveil the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.
&#8220;A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on,&#8221; Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said. &#8220;Am I stating that accurately?&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s correct,&#8221; Horowitz confirmed. &#8220;That&#8217;s what occurred.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This exchange. Staggering.
Cruz: “A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?&quot;
Horowitz: &quot;That&#39;s correct. That&#39;s what occurred&quot; <a href="https://t.co/pnsp7gssT1">pic.twitter.com/pnsp7gssT1</a>
&mdash; Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1204847596017205249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The IG report found: &#8220;In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison’s recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency. However, the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words &#8216;not a source&#8217; into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was “not a source”; the OGC Attorney then sent the altered email to SSA 2. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application (that again failed to disclose Page’s past relationship with the other agency).&#8221;
Earlier during the hearing, Horowitz essentially implied to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that what the FBI did was tantamount to &#8220;illegal surveillance.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s the interaction between Graham and Horowitz:
<blockquote>Graham: Let&#8217;s play this out. They never told Trump about the concerns, is it fair to say there came a point to where surveilling Carter Page became unlawful?
Horowitz: I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision.
Graham: Let&#8217;s put it this way, if you don&#8217;t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?
Horowitz: Absolutely.
Graham: Is that spying?
Horowitz: &#8216;It&#8217;s illegal surveillance, it&#8217;s not court authorized surveillance.
Graham: What ever illegal surveillance means, they did it. &#8230; They had no legal basis after the January 2017 data dump by the Russian guy to believe that the dossier was reliable. They alter exculpatory information in June of 2017 that would have further proven that Carter Page is not a Russian agent and he was actually working with the CIA.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sen. Lindsey Graham on FBI surveilling the Trump campaign: “Let’s put it this way, if you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it is that bad?”
IG Michael Horowitz: “Absolutely.”
Graham: ”Is that spying?”
Horowitz: “It’s illegal surveillance.” <a href="https://t.co/cYLZ3JjMJ3">pic.twitter.com/cYLZ3JjMJ3</a>
&mdash; Steven Cheung (@CaliforniaPanda) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaliforniaPanda/status/1204807961136246792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/barr-reveals-suspicious-action-taken-by-comey-blasts-fbi-for-shady-actions-with-anti-trump-dossier">told</a> NBC News that &#8220;in January, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says ‘I never told — I never told Steele this stuff and this was also speculation and I have zero information to support this stuff.’ At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president well into his administration, after the case collapsed.&#8221;
Barr continued, &#8220;But here to me is the damning thing: They not only didn’t tell the court that what they had been relying on was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, ‘we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful,’ but they don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is false.&#8221;

Horowitz: FBI Created ‘Fraudulent Evidence’ In Investigation, Implies ‘Illegal Surveillance’

Surveillance

Left-leaning CNN was slammed on Wednesday for refusing to air the opening statements of the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and ranking member before Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz&#8217;s testimony on the FBI&#8217;s misconduct in surveilling the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.
Republican National Committee (RNC) Rapid Response Director Steve Guest highlighted CNN&#8217;s actions by noting that CNN covered the entirety of all of the Democrats&#8217; impeachment hearings over the past several weeks.
RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel slammed CNN for its bias, tweeting: &#8220;CNN aired everything Schiff &amp; Nadler had to say. Why aren’t they showing [Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)]? Is it because the facts of how the FBI mistreated [President Trump] contradict[s] their coverage over the last 3 years?
&#8220;Anxiously awaiting an explanation from [CNN] about their bias here,&#8221; McDaniel added.
President Donald Trump responded by tweeting: &#8220;The News Media in our Country is FAKE and in many cases, totally CORRUPT!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The News Media in our Country is FAKE and in many cases, totally CORRUPT! <a href="https://t.co/hj9plf0GMC">https://t.co/hj9plf0GMC</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1204839933430644736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In a statement to The Daily Wire, the Trump campaign said:
<blockquote>Vladimir Putin has the Internet Research Agency to spread hoaxes and misinformation. The Democrat Party has CNN. After airing every last second of Democrats’ opening statements plus Democrat staffers talking to each other throughout six extremely boring impeachment hearings, CNN refused to air Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham&#8217;s opening statement in the hearing on the IG report today. Instead of informing viewers of the incredibly damning facts regarding the Obama-Biden FBI&#8217;s spying on the Trump Campaign in furtherance of the Russia Collusion Hoax that CNN spread for years, CNN turned to the same ‘experts’ who spread the hoax for their takes on the IG report. They also broadcast segments on impeachment, airplane safety, and a low-profile murder case. The IG report confirms that the FBI falsified evidence and lied to the FISA court in order to spy on the Trump campaign while burying real evidence that undermined the Russia Collusion Hoax, which CNN played an active role in spreading. No wonder they weren’t eager to let their viewers know the truth. This is Putin-style propaganda at its finest!</blockquote>
CNN eventually did switch its coverage to the hearing after Horowitz began to give his testimony to the Senate, but the damage had already been done, as numerous prominent figures noted CNN&#8217;s questionable decision to not air the full hearing.
Ari Fleischer tweeted: &#8220;CNN is not taking the Senate Horowitz hearing live. Unbelievable. A perfect example of how bias works. It’s not just what they cover. It’s what they don’t cover. CNN, after covering weeks of opening statements by Adam Schiff (D) and Jerry Nadler (D), doesn’t cover the opening statement of Lindsey Graham (R) at the Horowitz hearing. I can’t figure out what the difference is. Unless it has something to do with the item in parentheses.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
CNN, after covering weeks of opening statements by Adam Schiff (D) and Jerry Nadler (D), doesn’t cover the opening statement of Lindsey Graham (R) at the Horowitz hearing. I can’t figure out what the difference is. Unless it has something to do with the item in parentheses.
&mdash; Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) <a href="https://twitter.com/AriFleischer/status/1204801569578991616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Federalist co-founder Sean Davis responded to Fleischer’s tweet, writing: “CNN was an active participant in the hoax. Comey/Clapper used CNN to take the hoax public. CNN&#8217;s own contributors are being criminally investigated for their actions perpetrating the hoax. Accountability is an existential threat to CNN.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
CNN was an active participant in the hoax. Comey/Clapper used CNN to take the hoax public. CNN&#39;s own contributors are being criminally investigated for their actions perpetrating the hoax. Accountability is an existential threat to CNN. <a href="https://t.co/wFUQc4tJM4">https://t.co/wFUQc4tJM4</a>
&mdash; Sean Davis (@seanmdav) <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1204785749524131843?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Devin Nunes responded to Davis, writing: “They are too busy looking for me and my staff in VIENNA&#8230; @CNN needs to be reigned in by @ATT &#8230; Are there any adults left on the board of @ATT ?  #goodnightVienna”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
They are too busy looking for me and my staff in VIENNA&#8230; <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CNN</a> needs to be reigned in by <a href="https://twitter.com/ATT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ATT</a> &#8230; Are there any adults left on the board of <a href="https://twitter.com/ATT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ATT</a> ? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/goodnightVienna?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#goodnightVienna</a> <a href="https://t.co/PXXvV6VEBp">https://t.co/PXXvV6VEBp</a>
&mdash; Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) <a href="https://twitter.com/DevinNunes/status/1204788328769499137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Washington Post media reporter Erik Wemple tweeted: &#8220;Fox News, MSNBC are broadcasting the Horowitz hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, while CNN is doing other stuff.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Fox News, MSNBC are broadcasting the Horowitz hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, while CNN is doing other stuff.
&mdash; ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) <a href="https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1204834356000428033?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Wemple later added: &#8220;Strange that CNN is doing a panel right now on Horowitz while the other main cable news networks are carrying live his own testimony on Capitol Hill.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Strange that CNN is doing a panel right now on Horowitz while the other main cable news networks are carrying live his own testimony on Capitol Hill.
&mdash; ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) <a href="https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/status/1204842346627698688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Townhall Political Editor Guy Benson tweeted: &#8220;Currently — Fox: IG hearing MSNBC: IG hearing CNN: Anonymous sources claim POTUS is ‘privately agitated’ by impeachment.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Currently — 
Fox: IG hearing
MSNBC: IG hearing
CNN: Anonymous sources claim POTUS is ‘privately agitated’ by impeachment.
&mdash; Guy Benson (@guypbenson) <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1204826228970196992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Fox News host Howard Kurtz tweeted: &#8220;Major misstep by CNN, after blanketing Democratic hearings, to blow off Lindsey Graham&#8217;s opening statement (and Feinstein&#8217;s) at IG hearing. And MSNBC dipped in and out of Graham. Fuels the criticism that they&#8217;ve taken sides.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Major misstep by CNN, after blanketing Democratic hearings, to blow off Lindsey Graham&#39;s opening statement (and Feinstein&#39;s) at IG hearing. And MSNBC dipped in and out of Graham. Fuels the criticism that they&#39;ve taken sides
&mdash; HowardKurtz (@HowardKurtz) <a href="https://twitter.com/HowardKurtz/status/1204811580828999682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck tweeted: &#8220;[CNN] and @BrookeBCNN bail out of #HorowitzIGReport hearing to trot out liberal former assistant U.S. Attorney @ElieHonig and former Comey flack @JoshSCampbell to &#8216;fact-check&#8217; the Republicans, decrying partisanship (even though they only attack the GOP).&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Video: <a href="https://twitter.com/CNN?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CNN</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/BrookeBCNN?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BrookeBCNN</a> bail out of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HorowitzIGReport?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HorowitzIGReport</a> hearing to trot out liberal former assistant U.S. Attorney <a href="https://twitter.com/eliehonig?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ElieHonig</a> and former Comey flack <a href="https://twitter.com/joshscampbell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoshSCampbell</a> to &quot;fact-check&quot; the Republicans, decrying partisanship (even though they only attack the GOP) <a href="https://t.co/BERAsw2EnX">pic.twitter.com/BERAsw2EnX</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1204843428317745154?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

CNN Grilled For Refusing To Cover Opening Statements In Horowitz Testimony: ‘This Is Putin-Style Propaganda At Its Finest!’

Justice Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz debunked on Wednesday former FBI Director James Comey&#8217;s suggestion this week that the IG&#8217;s report exonerated the FBI from misconduct allegations over its surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016.
Following the release of the IG report this week, Comey wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post and tweeted a link to it, writing on Twitter: &#8220;So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America.&#8221;
In the op-ed, Comey claimed that &#8220;the allegation of a criminal conspiracy was nonsense. There was no illegal wiretapping, there were no informants inserted into the campaign, there was no &#8216;spying&#8217; on the Trump campaign.&#8221;
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Horowitz: &#8220;The former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?&#8221;
Horowitz responded: &#8220;I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this FISA.”
The inspector general&#8217;s report found that the FBI identified Steele&#8217;s primary sub-source in January 2017 and arranged a meeting with the individual, whose identity has not been disclosed. The <a href="https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf">report</a> found:
<blockquote>The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele&#8217;s reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source&#8217;s statements in multiple sections of the reporting. &#8230;
The Primary Sub-source was questioned again by the FBI beginning in March 2017 about the election reporting and his/her communications with Steele. The Washington Field Office agent (WFO Agent 1) who conducted that interview and others after it told the OIG that the Primary Sub-source felt that the tenor of Steele&#8217;s reports was far more &#8220;conclusive&#8221; than was justified. The Primary Subsource also stated that he/she never expected Steele to put the Primary Subsource&#8217;s statements in reports or present them as facts. According to WFO Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source said he/she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that &#8220;it was just talk.&#8221;</blockquote>
Graham then read an exchange that Comey had with a reporter in December 2018:
<blockquote>Reporter: Can I ask you a question on FISA abuse? It’s a major issue for the Republicans. Do you have total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant and also in the subsequent renewals?
Comey: I have total confidence that the FISA process was followed, that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI. I think the notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense.</blockquote>
Graham asked Horowitz: “Would it be fair to say that you take issue with that statement?”
Horowitz responded: “Certainly our findings were that there were significant problems with FISA.&#8221;
Horowitz later highlighted how the officials who were investigating the Trump campaign misled the FISA court by saying that the primary sub-source for the anti-Trump dossier created by former British spy Christopher Steele was credible but did not tell the court that the source refuted the claims in the Steele dossier.
&#8220;I would not have submitted the [FISA application] they put it,&#8221; Horowitz said. &#8220;No doubt about it. It had no business going in.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think the Department of Justice fairly treated these FISAs and [Trump campaign adviser Carter Page] was on the receiving end of the FISAs,&#8221; Horowitz continued.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
HOROWITZ ON COMEY:
“The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this” <a href="https://t.co/rdfo1hcli0">pic.twitter.com/rdfo1hcli0</a>
&mdash; Benny (@bennyjohnson) <a href="https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1204812277725192193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This report has been updated to include additional information.

James Comey Michael Horowitz

Inspector General Horowitz Debunks Comey Suggesting Exoneration: ‘Activities We Found Here Don’t Vindicate Anybody Who Touched This FISA’

James Comey

In an op-ed for <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us">The Hill</a> published Tuesday, George Washington University&#8217;s chair of public interest law Jonathan Turley explains how the widespread reporting by the media downplaying the significance of the Justice Department inspector general&#8217;s report on the origins of the Russian probe egregiously ignores the report&#8217;s &#8220;damaging and unsettling&#8221; findings about the actions of the FBI in its investigation of Trump and his associates.
Turley — a self-described long-time Democrat voter who was invited to testify in the impeachment hearings as an expert Republican witness during the impeachment hearings last week — begins his analysis of IG Michael Horowitz&#8217;s report by noting that if you&#8217;ve only tuned into most mainstream media outlets, you have likely concluded &#8220;that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.&#8221;
While Horowitz did say the FBI&#8217;s initial decision to investigate was &#8220;within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department,&#8221; writes Turley, that finding isn&#8217;t nearly as significant as the media has attempted to portray it to be because the &#8220;standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring &#8216;articulable facts.'&#8221; All Horowitz said is that, since the discretionary standard is so low, &#8220;he cannot say it was inappropriate to start,&#8221; writes Turley.
Noting that United States Attorney John Durham, who is conducting a parallel but more comprehensive investigation into the Russia probe origins, took the &#8220;unusual step&#8221; to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-attorney-john-durham-responds-to-fisa-report-hints-at-whats-to-come-in-criminal-investigation-into-origins-of-russia-probe">announce</a> in response to the release of the report Monday that he disagrees with that conclusion, as has Attorney General William Barr.
&#8220;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,&#8221; Durham said in a statement issued Monday. &#8220;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.&#8221;
Turley suggests that he agrees with Durham and Barr, then moves on to the larger issue: all the &#8220;highly damaging and unsettling&#8221; findings that filled the hundreds of pages of Horowitz&#8217;s report. The report details &#8220;a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates,&#8221; Turley stresses. 
The media&#8217;s attempt to focus on Horowitz saying the initial decision to initiate an investigation meets the low discretionary standard is &#8220;akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage,&#8221; he writes.
Once the investigation into potential Trump-Russia ties began, Turley writes, the FBI quickly made a series of appalling mistakes that should trouble all of us.
&#8220;Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts,&#8221; he writes.
&#8220;From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier,&#8221; Turley explains. &#8220;Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.&#8221;
&#8220;So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians?&#8221; Turley underscores. &#8220;Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.&#8221; (<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us">Read Turley&#8217;s full analysis here</a>.)
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/barr-no-collusion-investigation-completely-baseless-obama-talked-to-the-bad-guys-about-election-interference">Barr: No ‘Collusion,’ Investigation ‘Completely Baseless,’ Obama Talked To ‘The Bad Guys’ About Election Interference</a>

Menu