Did You Hear The One About The Ratcliffe Report?

The Ratcliffe report on foreign influence operation to affect our recent "election" was delivered to Congress today. I say this, in part, just to let regular readers know that I'm still on the job, but I can't write about everything. You can read the details about what happened with the report--actually, assessment is the proper term--here:

Intelligence analysts downplayed Chinese election influence to avoid supporting Trump policies, inspector finds

The important focus of this article is the all out war DNI Ratcliffe had to engage in with his bureaucracy in order to include virtually anything about China--because why would China even think of influencing our elections, I guess, since they're on such close terms with Biden Inc.?

"The analysts appeared reluctant to have their analysis on China brought forward because they tend to disagree with the [Trump] administration’s policies, saying in effect, I don’t want our intelligence used to support those policies,” Zulauf [intel ombudsman] concluded, saying this behavior violated analytic standards requiring independence from political considerations.

In other words, hold back lest we give support to Trump. Even though they know the truth. 

A senior intelligence official told the Washington Examiner that “inside the IC, we’re going to have to wrestle with the issues outlined in this report and the revelation that our own internal umpire basically said Ratcliffe was right and some of our career people, even CIA management, were politicizing China intelligence.”

Also, if this is what's happening out in the federal bureaucracy, anyone who thinks Trump will be able to effect significant declassification? Guess again.

 

UPDATED: The Frankfurt 'Raid' And Related Matters

Adam Housley reports on what he has been able to learn from three "solid" sources:

One of the claims by Powell I have looked into...the claim a location was raided in Germany with servers. I have 3 sources on this...all as solid as they come. Here is what I have found: 

1.There is/was a clandestine location in Frankfurt run by CIA used to monitor/manipulate elections around globe.

2.That location did have servers & a front company as cover.

3.I cannot confirm the location was tied to U.S. elections.

4. One source says raided, 2 don't know. 

So, the sources seem to be saying that Scytl was a CIA front company and they definitely confirm that the CIA in Frankfurt was manipulating elections around the world. Of the three sources, when queried regarding the "raid," one said, "I know about that--it happened." The other two said: "We don't know. whether it happened or not" Note that well. One said, "Yes, I have knowledge and it's true." The others simply said, "We don't know." Not to belabor the obvious, but that's not a denial of an event, it's a denial of knowledge about an alleged event. It's not even an expression of skepticism.

The more we hear about all this, the more it sounds like a professional intel operation. All the evidence that's been accumulating and is now being presented on the internet--how does that happen without the knowledge of key components in our IC? Especially when those IC agencies have been working with the same companies to manipulate elections around the world? Try reading this thread: Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) and the Author who created Scorecard in the Serbian team for DVS. Tell me if it doesn't smell like a professional--i.e., State run--intel operation, using sophisticated techniques to conceal the identities of operatives.

UPDATE: In case anyone is interested, here is how I see the "raid" in Germany going down. I wrote this as an email earlier. Of course I may be wrong, but to me it makes sense:

Trump/Barr come to the decision that the CIA/Scytl servers must be obtained for purposes of a national security investigation involving the election--obviously, not simply for the Trump campaign. I assume that, since manipulation of foreign elections is a very sensitive operation, for the sake of security the servers are located on a US Army facility (NOT an overt CIA facility).

Having come to the decision, Barr drafts up whatever legal process is required for the FBI to take possession of another USG agency's property--possibly against their will. The FBI will be used to take possession of the servers because they're the lead investigative agency on such matters (DIA only handles intra-military matters). Barr also arranges with the SecDef to grant the FBI base access and support and to have the servers transported by military flight to the US. From wherever they land, the servers are then taken to the FBI's forensic computer lab in Quantico--possibly by USMC vehicles, since FBI Quantico is located on a USMC base.

Trump or a trusted designee sends the paperwork to Amb/Germany with instructions to order the FBI to take possession of the described servers. The FBI agents are also given a point of contact at the Army facility in Wiesbaden--since the FBI has no authority to simply barge onto a military facility and conduct a search and seizure. The FBI is also probably told that any questions may be addressed to Barr and to nobody else--or possibly a trusted aide.

The FBI in Germany follows the instructions and orders they receive from the Ambassador and take custody of the servers. The "raid" will appear to have been led by the military, but the FBI agents will have been present throughout and will be the ones who take official possession of the servers. FBI agents from Germany also accompany the servers on board the military flight and all the way to Quantico--with the FBI agents maintaining custody the whole way.

At some point I suspect that a copy is made of all the servers--just in case. Who would have custody, I'm not sure. But not Chris Wray or Gina Haspel.

Need-To-Know Distancing Is Now A Thing In The Intel Community

Need-to-know--what a concept, right? Why should the FBI be routinely receiving Codeword/SIGINT briefings without a demonstrated need to know?

Apparently that's a question that soon-to-be-former Acting DNI Ric Grenell asked himself. That's just one more reason why a clearly panicked Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) is rushing the nomination of previous outcast John Ratcliffe for the DNI post with almost unseemly haste.

Not only did Grenell come up with that question, but he found an answer: there is NO reason for that practice. In fact, it's an elementary violation of sound Intel practice. So, having found an answer to his question, Grenell acted--per Jack Posobiec:

Jack Posobiec
@JackPosobiec
   
BREAKING: New DNI instruction removes FBI from codeword SIGINT briefings and products that contain sources/methods. They have been ordered to return to core LE/CT work.

More: The FBI will no longer receive raw or refined sources and methods COMINT/SIGINT product, only sanitized analyst product.

The orders have already gone out to the relevant IC commands, including INSCOM. Now FBI's access will only be granted on a per-incident basis if matter is not directly related to terrorism or a criminal activity under active investigation.

With the exception of terrorism and criminal matters the FBI is out of the raw intelligence business. 

One reason to enforce need to know rules is to diminish the number of possible leakers. And now we know that the SSCI can act expeditiously when faced with an emergency. Who knows what other questions Grenell has been asking himself?

Sooner Rather Than Later--DNI Ratcliffe?

Remember when The Swamp told Trump, Take that John Ratcliffe nomination for Director of National Intelligence and shove it? Did they really think they could get away with humiliating Trump and Ratcliffe, and Trump would simply slink off with his tail between his legs? This is hilarious:

Arthur Schwartz
@ArthurSchwartz

Typical CNN dishonesty. First they falsely reported that Grenell would be in place a long time because Ratcliffe wouldn’t be confirmed anytime soon. Now this.

CNN missed the original story from the start: Ratcliffe would be confirmed quickly.

Quote Tweet

Alexander Marquardt
@MarquardtA

Senate Intel is taking steps to hold confirmation hearing for Rep. John Ratcliffe for DNI next week. This suggests lawmakers would like to end the @RichardGrenell's time at the top of the intelligence community sooner rather than later, @ZcohenCNN @jeremyherb report.

12:38 PM · Apr 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Meanwhile Grenell has taken many, many of the steps that Trump wanted taken to reform the Intel Community. He's actually turned ODNI into something resembling what it was supposed to be--a coordinator and overseer of intelligence, rather than a competitor with other entities and a place to obtain bloated compensation. Personnel are being sent out to other agencies to help do the actual work.

And Ratcliffe will come in knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt who his foes are.

Schiff V. Grenell

An interesting battle is shaping up between Adam Schiff, Dem chair of the House intelligence committee, and President Trump's Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Rick Grenell. Schiff has attempted to bully Grenell and bring him to heel--which is to say, bring a halt to Grenell's ongoing housecleaning of the Intel Community. Grenell has rejected Schiff's demand that personnel moves be cleared through Schiff. In typical Schiff fashion, Schiff's missives have--for practical purposes--been released to the press before Grenell has had any chance to respond. Grenell is having none of it, and has responded in a manner that sets him apart from the usual groveling of agency heads before a Congressional committee chairman.

The Hill has a summary of the spat: Intelligence chief Grenell hits back against Schiff criticism of agency reorganization. Schiff set things off by essentially claiming that Grenell should clear personnal changes through Schiff.

Schiff noted that Grenell was pursuing leadership changes at intelligence agencies without seeking authorization from Congress and raised questions about the removal or departure of every Senate-confirmed official at the ODNI.  

Schiff also accused Grenell of allowing his staff to “interfere with the production and briefing of intelligence information” on election security that was given to Congress during a March 10 all-members briefing on election security.  

...  

Another issue raised by Schiff was the decision by President Trump to fire Michael Atkinson, the now-former acting inspector general of the IC. Atkinson alerted Congress to the anonymous whistleblower complaint around Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that ultimately kicked off the impeachment investigation into Trump. 

Grenell responded by telling Schiff in just about so many words to mind his own business and spend some time reading the Constitution:

Easter Special: Joe diGenova On Atkinson, FISA, And The Durham Investigation

Today we have a transcript of Joe diGenova's weekly session on Mornings on the Mall--Monday, April 6, 2020. He covers a lot of ground, and it gets into some really important matters.

Q: So, Joe, news that didn't really get super noticed because of the cornonavirus--but really no news other than the coronavirus *is* getting noticed--the President fired Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Friday. [Trump] put [Atkinson] on--[Atkinson] will leave his job technically in thirty days but he was placed on administrative leave effective *immediately*--why now? 

diGenova: It was time. The evidence has been gathered against Michael Atkinson, and here it is. Michael Atkinson was fired, not just because of the way he corruptly influenced the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community in his handling of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella--who was *not* a whistleblower, did not have an intel matter to complain about, and who was actually allowed to give hearsay evidence because of *Michael Atkinson's changing of the rules.* Remember, Michael Atkinson testified before the Schiff Impeachment Committee. [Atkinson's] transcript of his testimony has never been released. Ask yourself: Why? But here's the most important part of Michael Atkinson besides that. You will recall that this week the Inspector General issued a scathing report. He stopped his full review of FISA applications to issue an interim report where he found almost one hundred percent of all cases the [Federal] Bureau [of Investigation] had done did not have what's called a "Woods" file. Inside the Department of Justice there's supposed be what's called an "Accuracy Review" for all of those applications. Guess who was leading up those reviews in 30 and [sic] 42 of those cases? Michael Atkinson! And in the cases in which he reviewed, 39 of 42 failed all tests. That was a 93% failure rating for Michael Atkinson! Remember that the Office of Legal Counsel [DoJ office that assists the AG in advising the President] also *excoriated* him--Michael Atkinson--for his legal analysis on why he was required to take Eric Ciaramella's complaint to the Hill. In short, Michael Atkinson was an incompetent, he was politically corrupt, he was part of the coup d'etat, and he should have been fired. And then last night he issues a smarmy, preening, sanctimonious statement about how grand it was to be an Inspector General and everybody needs to support [Inspectors General]. And by the way--Horowitz, Michael Horowitz [DoJ Inspector General], issued a statement *praising* Mr. Atkinson after [Horowitz] had *crushed* Mr. Atkinson earlier in the week. Go figure! 

Q: OK, interesting, so let me just double back on a point you just made. Which is: The FISA applications--they are supposed to be reviewed by Atkinson, the *Intelligence Community* Inspector General, not the DoJ IG? 

I like that question, because it shows the host really wants to understand this process. Of course, as diGenova explains, Inspectors General have nothing to do with the approval or review process for FISA applications. The DoJ's IG conducts audits or inspections in retrospect.

diGenova: No, no, no! He did that job when he was Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General [in DoJ's National Security Division--got all that?] under Mary McCord, and he did it while he was *counsel* for the Division, for Accuracy Reviews, for the FISA Court. He was a total failure. 

Q: OK, I'm following with you now. And then, on the issue of it not being appropriate to file a whistleblower complaint for a variety of reasons--you mentioned Eric Ciaramella not being a direct witness, those rules were changed by Atkinson--and then, early on, we know--and Joe we've talked about this regularly--the President doesn't even fall under the definition of a *member* of the Intelligence Community for purposes of the Inspector General. 

diGenova: That is correct. The President is not someone covered by the Intelligence Community Act--*and* this was not a matter involving intelligence. This was a foreign policy political matter--it had *nothing to do* with the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community IG, Michael Atkinson. This was a setup. This was *designed*, purposely. And remember--Atkinson worked for Mary McCord, who was one of the people who went to work for Schiff--through lawfare at the Brookings Institution--to do this. They're very old friends, they've worked together before. Mr. Atkinson was part of the plot. 

Q: Joe, you mentioned how [Atkinson's] testimony is the only testimony that has not been released in the impeachment inquiry. Does the President have the ability and the power to release that testimony? 

diGenova: No. That testimony belongs to the House Intelligence Committee and the generic Impeachment Panel that they set up, and Schiff has refused to release it. And apparently, some of the members, apparently all of the Republican members have *never seen* the transcript. So this is, this really dynamite stuff--I'd like to see what's in there, but that's an afterthought because I'm sure he did not commit perjury. He's probably slick enough to realize that he can't lie under oath--even to a friendly committee--so I'm sure there's some devastating stuff in there. But believe me--the President didn't need to see that to fire [Atkinson], but of course all of us would like to see it, and if the Republicans take over the Committee after the next election they'll be able to release it. 

Q: Let me go back to the issue of the DoJ IG that you mentioned, finding *so many*--one hundred percent of the FISA applications that he reviewed had flaws in them, mistakes, problems, before the court, which is a huge problem. Now, we were told by the New York Times when that report came out last week that this somehow *mitigates* the political consequences for the FBI, because it suggests that there was no *targeting* of Carter Page but instead that *everybody* has been subject to these types of errors, so therefore President Trump wasn't uniquely targeted. And to that, you say? 

Joe's answer here is very important--it goes to an aspect of this report from Horowitz that really amazed me. You'll see reference something like 42 FISA applications that were reviewed. There problems with essentially all of them--and big problems--but that isn't the fact that suggests the real problem. Here's what stunned me. The accuracy reviews that Horowitz was reviewing were all on FISA's of US persons--USPERs. The 42 that were reviewed were picked out of a pool of 700 FISA applications on USPERs from, I believe, 2014 up to pretty much the present.

While I'm not in a position to say how many such FISAs we should expect the FBI to obtain on USPERs over any given period of years, 700 FISAs on USPERs over that period seems to me to be an outrageously large number. Contrary to anything you've probably heard, a FISA on an USPER is not easy to get. When I heard that number my reaction was--Wow! Could they have had FISAs on so many USPERs in counterterrorism cases? I thought that had to be it because there is no possible way that they could be getting so many FISAs on USPERs in counterintelligence cases. From my experience that should be wildly impossible, even with some of the Patriot Act expansions. But I was still amazed--who could these large numbers of USPERs be who were believed to be engaged in foreign intelligence operations? Now, read what diGenova has to say about all that, keeping in mind that the really important number is -- 700:

diGenova: BS! First of all, the New York Times does not know that. They were guessing. This is where the New York Times has ended up--they're crazy. And second of all--*very* interesting--the FISA Court, after Michael Horowitz issued this scathing interim report, the FISA Court said to the FBI: I wanna know the names of *every target* in those items that Mr. Horowitz identified. Who were the people you were targeting? And you know why the Court did that? Because the Court suspects that they're all political figures, or people *connected* to political figures, and that the FISAs were done for the purpose of targeting so that they could get political information, unmask the people, and then leak the information. This is a fascinating development that has gone unreported. It has been reported that the Court has *demanded* from the FBI the names of all the targets on the FISA applications that Horowitz found wanting. Why did the Court do that? Because the Court suspects that once it sees the names of the people who were being surveilled it will be able to conclude that they were all political targets, which we all know has been going on since almost the beginning of the Obama administration. 

With that number of 700 firmly in mind, does that give you some idea of the enormity of what we may be looking at? This is why diGenova said on the Howie Carr show that "the FBI as an agency is in freefall. It's not your mother's FBI." (It's well worth listening to that whole podcast, which starts around the 18 minute mark here.)

Q: Wow! That would be *huge!* Joe, when it comes to all these people we're hearing about--Eric Ciaramella, and Atkinson, and all these people being fired and their names being floated--if the Republicans take over the House are we gonna start to see some action on these people? Is that what's gonna happen, or is it gonna be disappointment as usual? 

diGenova: Oh, I think you'll see lots of action, but I think something that's even more interesting than that, Mary, is that, last week, while all this is going on--and this all got lost, understandably, because of coronavirus--the Durham investigation, it is now confirmed, is targeting John Brennan. Brennan is, in fact, the target of the Durham investigation. A number of people from the Intelligence Community who were interviewed or went before the Grand Jury with Durham have told associates that all of the questions were about Brennan--What he was doing, What was the basis for what he was doing?--and they are delving *deeply* into the Intelligence Assessment that was done and ordered by President Obama, which was a fake from the beginning. This is Brennan time! This is all about Brennan! So, You're question is right on the money, and that targeting of the people who were responsible for everything that's gone on for almost six years--in fact it's *longer* than six years--Durham is now targeting Brennan.

 And now you know why Barr speaks of the investigation as a "sprawling" one.

MAJOR FAKE NEWS UPDATE: Early Intel Warnings Of Potential Danger Of Pandemic

ABC News is running with an important story that provides detail on the US Intel Community's (IC) early knowledge of the Wuhan Virus' potential for catastrophic impact on the world--or, at a minimum, on US miltary forces in Asia: Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November. Obviously this story--and it is obvious, if you read the whole thing--is trying to pin the blame for what's happening currently in the US on Trump. So, before I provide some excerpts from ABC, I'll lead with the intro to Zerohedge's coverage--US Intelligence Warned Of "Cataclysmic" Coronavirus Crisis As Impeachment Dominated Headlines:

While Congressional Democrats dominated headlines with their impeachment of President Trump - who was ultimately acquitted by the Senate, US intelligence officials were sounding the alarm that a serious illness was sweeping through China's Wuhan region.

The idea of the ABC reporting seems to be that a president who is being impeached shouldn't miss a beat in anticipating potential--not actual--disease threats. And the perpetrators of what was clearly a constitutionally fraudulent impeachment--indeed, an Impeachment Theater event--should bear no responsibility. In my view that will be a losing narrative, just as the Russia Hoax was. OTOH, it will require skill and determination to turn it aside.

Beyond that, however, another bit of context may be helpful. Apparently the CDC is saying that they were basically misled by the Chicoms and by the WHO. They thought that what was happening in China was another SARS-Classic event that, while serious, could be contained. While wrong, that was not a totally misguided assessment, given the history of past SARS outbreaks in China, from 2003 on. Thus they remained focused on the developing flu season. What CDC didn't yet realize was that SARS-CoV-2 was, in epidemiological terms, a decisive development over SARS-Classic that gave the new virus much greater potential for a pandemic breakout. The thinking at CDC reflected informed epidemiological thinking as found in Michael Osterholm's 2017 book, which classified SARS as a regional epidemic threat but new flu strains as potential pandemic threats--potential global threats.

Thus, Trump--besides being greatly occupied with all the resistance shenanigans and the Impeachment Theater throughout the months of the Covid19 buildup and breakout--from November, 2019, to the end of January, 2020--would have been receiving conflicting accounts of the novel virus: those from the IC and those from the CDC.

All that said, there is definite material of interest in ABC's reporting, mostly IMO with regard to what it tells us about China. Here are the opening paragraph's from ABC, which cover the essential details:

Flynn Case: Government Asks For Three Week Delay

Sara Carter is reporting that prosecutors in the case against Michael Flynn are asking the court for three more weeks to examine the voluminous documentation that they received from Flynn's former legal team. That documentation goes to the issue of a conflict of interest that Flynn's current attorney, Sidney Powell, maintains cannot be remedied.

What's not clear is how this works with the re-examination of the Flynn case that AG Barr ordered. Barr brought in an outside US Attorney--Jeffrey Jensen of St. Louis--to handle that re-examination.

Meanwhile, as Trump's team continues to clean house in the Intel agencies and at DoJ, the Durham investigation continues toward the point in time when we were told to expect developments: late Spring to early Summer.

Trump Can Multitask--Fires Intel Community IG Atkinson

Demonstrating once again that no crisis can completely ties his hands, President Trump took care of some unfinished business tonight by firing a key Deep State operative--Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, Michael K. Atkinson. In his letters informing the heads of the House and Senate Intel Committees that Atkinson was being fired, effective 30 days hence, Trump stated:

As is the case with regard to other positions where I, as president, have the power of appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general.

I suppose Atkinson's firing was a small price for the Dems to pay for all the turmoil they were able to put the country through with their Ukraine Hoax Impeachment Theater--thanks to Atkinson's shenanigans. Still, with Richard Grenell cleaning house as Director of National Intelligence and with Bill Barr's DoJ breathing down the necks of the coup plotters, they may yet regret losing another key operative who was able to protect the likes of Eric Ciaramella. We can hope so.

Codevilla: Nobody's Afraid Of Trump

I've highlighted several articles by Angelo Codevilla in the past months, mostly having to do with the Intelligence Community and with FISA in particular. This morning he has an article at American Greatness in which he addresses this question: Why are the Dem elites so afraid of Bernie Sanders and seem less worried about Donald Trump. Here's the link:

Intelligence and the Democrats’ Internal Affairs

During the past three years or so, the establishment has learned that Donald Trump barks but mostly does not bite. Nobody fears Trump. Bernie Sanders and his zealots are another story.

Codevilla's explanation for the state of affairs as he frames it is simple and sensible. Bernie and his followers know that they were screwed out of the 2016 nomination by the Dem establishment. They also know that the Intel Community was deeply complicit in the plot in favor of Hillary:

... in July 2016,  the FBI’s decision to take the DNC’s story at face value, not to press for examining the server, and not to investigate other possibilities for the leak—never mind Rich’s murder—was to shield the Democratic Party’s establishment against a threat more clear and present than the then-unlikely prospect that Trump might defeat Hillary Clinton. Looming over the Democratic Party at that instant was that Bernie Sanders’ people were on the verge of disrupting the convention and jeopardizing her election. 

The FBI’s collusion in the supposed hacking, its support of the narrative of the DNC-as-victim, rather than of the reality of the DNC’s fix of the primaries, helped cut the ground from under possible Sandersista protests. This would not be the last time that the agencies took sides in intra-ruling class quarrels.

The Dem establishment knows that if the Bernie faction gets control of the party, they will exact retribution. Bernie is therefore an existential threat:

The Grennell Appointment

No need to spend much time on the appointment of Rick Grennell as Acting DNI. Trump has made a move that appears to be aimed at the heart of the Intel Community (IC).

Grennell will not only have access to top leve intel, he'll also have access to material that was used against Trump and can be declassified. Yes, Trump gave full power to declassify to AG Barr, and we haven't seen much. While I'm willing to wait, I do believe that more can be done in terms of transparency. We the People do deserve to get a look at more of the coup plotting than has been revealed, Trump wants it, and I see no reason to believe that there aren't large amounts that could be revealed without harm to either national security or future prosecutions. Yes, the intel services of "allies" would be unhappy, but Americans deserve to know who our "allies" really are. Beyond that, putting names to documents that will be revealed in court at a later date prejudices no one.

Perhaps more importantly, however, Grennell will have access to pretty much everything to do with Impeachment Theater, and he can declassify that, too. Everything internal to the IC that went through the IC IG office--Michael Atkinson--could be declassified. Could this be a backdoor way to reveal Atkinson's House testimony. Yes. And much else. We may be about to learn much more about everyone who had anything to do with the Impeachment Theater and the Ukraine Hoax. And that will inevitably involve upon the Russia Hoax.

I won't say that Grennell and Barr will be in competition, exactly, but I can see no reason whatsoever for Grennell to try to ingratiate himself with anyone in DC except Trump. DNI is a cabinet level post, which places Grennell on a level with Barr. Grennell is in a position to be a powerful ally to the Barr/Durham investigation in terms of breaking through bureaucratic logjams and delaying tactics. Barr should go for it.

UPDATED: How To Reform The CIA and FBI

Sorry--I have no bright ideas. And that's the point. What I'll offer is a quote from a retired CIA Station Chief, Bradley Johnson. The quotes are from a 20 minute interview--so just a snippet. Please don't belabor me re the site that this appeared at. My point is simply that, in my experience, this guy is absolutely right. Even if Trump were not, as Tucker Carlson says, ‘horrible at hiring people’, he'd still be facing a nearly insuperable task in attempting to root out the embedded resistance at the Intel agencies. Read this and weep for the country:

Do you think the top floors of CIA still have a “protect the Deep State” agenda? 

“All of the agencies are that way, the FBI, the CIA, NSA, the State Department, they are all that way. The pipeline to leadership in all of the federal agencies that are in the intelligence community have been controlled by the left for a long time. The only people who make their way up through that pipeline and get into positions of leadership are the “resist” Deep State types of people. So they’re all that way, there’s no exceptions to that. It’s not what talking heads say, ‘Oh, there’s good people there, purely professional there…’ That used to be that way, but that’s no longer that way. That was all consolidated under Obama, and that’s the way it stays, and unfortunately Trump hasn’t had the chance to fix that yet.” 

I will repeat what I said recently in the context of the Hasan case, that the rot set in well before Obama. I suspect that Johnson would agree and would add that his point is precisely that the Obama years "consolidated" this transformation. Part of his "fundamental transformation" of America.

On reforming the CIA and the other Intel agencies that have been co-opted by globalists and leftists: 

“It’s a tough problem, and I would say that anyone I’ve talked to that are retired ‘agency’ and people like that, that I know, we’ve all concluded that essentially it cannot be fixed with what’s there, and I think that’s the bottom line.” 

Speaking about the bloated numbers of personnel at the Intel agencies, and how a RIF [Reduction In Force] might improve the situation, or instead, might be used by the dominant leftists to target the remaining conservatives for firing: 

“I would say there’s no patriots left, certainly not at the leadership level. At the working level, yes, but those people essentially, you have to keep your head down and your mouth shut, because if it comes out that you’re a conservative, you’re destroyed, your career is over. It’s not that you necessarily get fired on the spot, but you’re never going to get a good job, and the only way to get promoted and move up is to have a good job that tics off all those things that are required to go to the next level, and that’s how they control the pipeline. There’s a lot of laws controlling the promotion process, but there’s no laws controlling how jobs are handed out, and that’s the way that the liberals have taken it over inside all of these federal agencies. Many years ago at [the] State Department, and in recent decades at the rest of the agencies. So a RIF, especially at the higher levels, there’s no conservatives to target, so it would only be to the good. It would be a net win to do a RIF of any sort at any of these agencies.”

UPDATE: Pat Lang, who runs Sic Semper Tyrannis, offers a readable perspective on the numerous intel failures the US has experience in relatively recent years, while the IC became ever more politicized. It's a good read: Burn CIA and FBI to the ground? Start over?

Can The Democrat Party Survive?

Some of you may have seen Matt Taibbi's latest. I like Don Surber's intro to the highlights of Taibbi's piece:

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has tried to save liberalism from liberals, but to no avail. They keep being cashews and pistachios to President Donald John Trump's very sane genius. 

Having warned them not to pursue the Russian collusion hoax, he is now trying to stop them from calling everyone they don't like Russian assets. 

Taibbi wrote, "Hillary Clinton is nuts. She’s also not far from the Democratic Party mainstream, which has been pushing the same line for years. 

"Less than a week before Clinton’s outburst, the New York Times — once a symbol of stodgy, hyper-cautious reporting — ran a feature called, 'What, Exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?' The piece speculated about the 'suspicious activity' surrounding Gabbard’s campaign, using quotes from the neoconservative think-tank, the Alliance For Securing Democracy, to speculate about Gabbard’s Russian support. 

"This was the second such article the Times had written. An August piece, “Tulsi Gabbard thinks we’re doomed,“ hit nearly all the same talking points, quoting Clint Watts, an ex-spook from the same think-tank, calling Gabbard 'the Kremlin’s preferred Democrat' and a 'useful agent of influence.' The Times article echoed earlier pieces by the Daily Beast and NBC.com that said many of the same things." 

Perhaps Democrats are othering Gabbard -- a Sanders socialist -- to punish her for an absence of fealty to Hillary in 2016. She is as anti-life, anti-capitalism,and anti-individual rights as any of them. 

More likely they are laying the foundation for spying on her. Obama's McCarthyism against Donald Trump (and likely earlier opponents) did not end with him.

However, Zerohedge republished a blog that is actually rather more serious than Taibbi, although covering similar territory. The direction he goes shares some commonality with Surber's jibe regarding Dem spying--the Globalist collusion of the DC political establishment and the Intelligence Community.

Renee Parsons asks the interesting but quite serious question: Will The Democratic Party Exist After 2020 Election? Here's an extended excerpt: