It's very wide ranging so it's pointless to try to summarize it. It's a bit too long to do a transcript, but here's a snippet from Gateway Pundit that hits on one important point--the FBI played fast and loose with the FISA application.
“There’s a document that’s classified that I’m gonna try to get unclassified that takes the dossier, all pages of it and it has verification to one side. There really is no verification other than media reports that were generated by reporters who received the dossier,” Lindsey Graham said.
Graham continued, “So, the bottom line is the dossier has never been independently confirmed. It was used to get a warrant. They knew the author of the dossier was on the Democratic Party payroll — he hated Trump — they got the warrant anyway. Most Americans should be very upset about that. I’m very upset about it. And we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”
But there's lots more, including Graham's statement that the IG report will focus strongly on the origins of the whole Russia Hoax and the FBI "investigation". For Graham--and he goes through many examples--the bottom line is that the Deep State and its allies "wanted an outcome, to get Trump, and the rules didn't matter."
Rush Limbbaugh has a good musing on the unknown origins of the investigation.
While Rush hasn't really broken ground in the investigation, he still has one of the biggest platforms around and has shined light on what's going on. He is also very good at giving credit to the sources that he uses. He is a fan of Paul Sperry.
Tx. It's getting increasingly difficult to, as Barr says, wrap one's arms around all the data.Delete
I just watched an Epoch Times interview of Tony Shaffer in which, I think, he provides a good outline of the scope of this thing. What do you think of him? https://youtu.be/ITvnDtuRIgMDelete
Rick, I'm going to quickly respond in a new comment thread below.Delete
Yes, I agree. I spend way too much time on this.ReplyDelete
1. This is an increasingly tenuous time in our nation.
2. The news seems to be going our way.
I'm currently kicking myself for spending so much time responding to "CJ's" obvious disinformation.Delete
Who is CJ ?Delete
Author of a series of very long and IMO at times seriously misleading comments at Homerun McCarthy. Because he's intent on defending RR and Carlson's blog addresses those issues, I thought you had those comments in mind.Delete
As Rosenstein Leaves DOJ, How Will History Judge Him?, a new article by Jeff Carlson on his website The Markets WorkReplyDelete
Tx Mike. I follow Jeff's blog, but hadn't gotten around to reading that one this morning.Delete
There's a lot of interesting material in it. It's difficult to simply take public statements at face value and extrapolate from that, as Jeff does to a great extent. It's like pointing out that Barr has said nice things about Sessions--perhaps the only man in WDC to do so. Clearly Barr isn't stupid, so clearly you can't take official remarks at face value all the time.
As I've said, I've been puzzled for a long time about Rosenstein. My basic position is that Sessions did a deal with Dem and NeverTrump senators: confirm me and I'll recuse and I'll get Rosenstein as my Deputy. sundance's post today re Wray goes into some of those Deep State issues, and I think Wray fits within that scenario too. So it's very difficult for me to see RR as an innocent player here.
In the end, I have to go with facts rather than public words. What did RR do, what can we say he knew, as I've outlined in recent comments. The remarks re the FISA that Jeff quotes are telling, and they also apply to the SC appointment. RR would have us believe that all he did--in company with top DoJ attorneys--was to pass judgment on the final package, judging it (or so we're supposed to believe) simply on what was included in the app. Two problems for me in that: 1. Problems with the investigation generally had been known for months (again, my comments); 2. Where was the progress in the investigation, the new and corroborating evidence flowing from the THREE PREVIOUS FISA PERIODS? Andy McCarthy has maintained, persuasively IMO, that despite the redactions we can tell that these problems remained.
Finally, re the SC appointment. It's not enough for RR to say, hey, the FBI has an investigation going, let's just take it away from McCabe and give it to an SC. That step, IMO, is a major one that requires a searching review of the predication. RR is no longer rubber stamping an FBI decision. He's in the position of a prosecutor passing on the sufficiency of evidence for an investigation to go forward at a MUCH higher level. Any review he conducted was clearly inadequate at the outset, but as events progressed became grotesquely inadequate as it became clear to everyone--including RR and Mueller--that collusion was all a hoax.
There was simply no justification. It was malfeasance.
McCarthy, Nunes, and many others have all argued convincingly that the hoax nature of the FBI investigation was clear to anyone involved no later than a few months later, but most likely at the outset. That's a fact that is impossible to reconcile with RR doing his sworn duties responsibly. No matter what fine words he spoke publicly.Delete
I didn't want to go there but since Jeff Carlson's name has been raised here, I will comment.Delete
When I first read the post by "CJ", I wondered if it was Jeff himself posting as "CJ", vice "JC." Especially since he did seem to mimic some of Jeff's posts.
I've since decided that if Jeff were to ever comment here, he would probably use his real name. "CJ" is probably a play on Jeff's initials.
I thought that it was one of your more powerful sets of comments.ReplyDelete
I'm glad that you did it. Since I just commented to you about my confusion about RR, your comments to CJ made me sit up and take notice. Since you and Joe DiGenvoa both think that RR acted illegally/irresponsibly, I will now move him to the bad category on my list. (Kind of like on election night when the networks call a state for one of the candidates.) LOL
Tx Joe. See above.Delete
One last thought. I can't help wondering if "CJ" is a prominent commentator. Maybe not a household name but at least someone who blogs and tweets. I might be wrong but my "spider sense" is tingling, as Spiderman would say.ReplyDelete
Commenter Rick wrote (above):ReplyDelete
"I just watched an Epoch Times interview of Tony Shaffer in which, I think, he provides a good outline of the scope of this thing. What do you think of him? https://youtu.be/ITvnDtuRIgM"
I'm familiar with Shaffer only generally, so I can't speak for him re every position he's taken. Thus far I've listened to about the first 9 minutes of the 41 minute video. Some remarks:
From what I've listened to thus far I highly recommend the video. Shaffer is clearly knowledgeable about how the IC works and, specifically, how the FBI functions within the IC and within the intel functions of the executive branch overall. His recommendations for three areas of focus for Barr's investigation are well thought out and exhibit that grasp of the basics.
In particular, his statement that many of the FBI's actions could only be taken with high level authorizations is true and important. His contention that Obama certainly knew of what was going on is, IMO, also true. What level of detail, I don't know, but that's simply the way bureaucracies work. No FBI Director is going to take the actions Comey took without having his backside covered.
Shaffer specifically mentions the overseas "lures." We've seen Strzok mention those precisely in the context of receiving "authorization" to conduct those lures. That would have had to come down through DoJ, but I presume other agencies would also have had to sign off. Similarly, similar processes were involved in getting Deripaska and Veselnitskaya into the country--as we also know. The FBI Director doesn't do that stuff just on his own.
Finally, before I return to listening, his contention re involvement of MI5 and MI6 is also important and true.
Rick, he makes another good point at 15 or so.Delete
He points out, as others have, that Mueller never questioned the extraordinary use of a source like the Steele dossier, or, Steele and his dossier.
The reason for that seems obvious to me. For Mueller to question that, he would necessarily be questioning the predication for his own investigation.
Question: Where was RR in that?
Just about finished. Excellent, overall.Delete
I really liked his explanation of the scope and limits of IG investigations.Delete
Would you agree that finding untainted people to investigate this monstrosity will be *very* difficult?Delete
Not being a DC insider, it's hard for me to say. OTOH, Barr has a lifetime worth of contacts in law and government to draw on, OTOH like Barr himself his contacts are probably getting older and may not have the fire in the belly. Maybe that's too pessimistic--I hope so. Shaffer's right that this is a very big job.Delete
I just finished watching the Tony Shaffer interview and it dawns on me--IIRC there's an IG for the IC (Inspector General for the Intelligence Community) who should be up to his eyeballs looking into the issues (sharing & tasking authorities) that NSA's Adm Rogers raised, and John Brennan's conduct participating in domestic & political affairs (Crossfire Hurricane was organized out of Langley, yes). Yet, I've heard no discussion of the IG for IC during this entire scandal period. Thoughts...ReplyDelete
Good point, Forbes, but I'm afraid I can't help much. One of the things that Shaffer pointed out, which is widely misunderstood, is that the various IG offices are only authorized to do internal investigations. Presumably, if the the IC IG has undertaken such investigations relating to the Russia Hoax he's not leaking, but it's not clear whether internal guidelines were violated at CIA. Sorry.Delete