So This Is What Lindsey Graham Was Talking About

This morning Lindsey Graham spoke out about a ballot harvesting operation in Pennsylvania nursing homes. As he noted, ballot harvesting is illegal in Pennsylvania. Repeat: Illegal.  He referred to 25,000 ballots that were returned all on the same day. You know that Lindsey knew more than he was giving away. It's interesting to note how up front and Trump-supportive Lindsey has been. I doubt that Mitch McConnell would have let Lindsey go way out on a limb. Think about that, and think about this: Yesterday Bill Barr turned local USAs loose on election fraud and then went to talk to Mitch. Today Gina Haspel, CIA Director turned up at Mitch's office, late in the day (h/t EZ). Who thinks Barr and Mitch aren't on the same page? Because Mitch, too, has been supportive of Trump.

Here, courtesy of CFP, is what Lindsey was talking about:

Pennsylvania smoking gun…

Posted by Kane on November 10, 2020 3:56 pm

Pennsylvania:
Nearly 35,000 ballots were returned on the same day they were mailed out.

23,000 have an impossible return date—earlier than the sent date.

More than 9,000 have no sent date.https://t.co/hHq2y0Bl11

— Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) November 10, 2020

More than 100,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have questionable return dates.

Nearly 35,000 ballots were returned on the same day they were mailed out.

23,000 have an impossible return date — it is earlier than the ‘sent date.’

More than 9,000 have no sent date.

More than 100,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have unlikely or impossible return dates, based on a researcher’s analysis of the state’s voter database.

Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out—an extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000 were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have an impossible return date—earlier than the sent date.

Full story at Epoch Times…

In Defense Of Lindsey Graham

While we're on the subject of compelled testimony ...

We regularly hear how worthless Lindsey Graham is because he doesn't haul Russia Hoax malefactors--people we know did wrong--before the Senate and force them to come clean.

Shipwreckedcrew just put out a new post expanding a bit on the whole issue of compelled testimony and the trouble a prosecutor can get it into if he even inadvertently uses it at trial. In doing so, he offers two examples that have nothing to do with OIG, but which are nevertheless quite relevant to what's going on in DC these days. One has to do with testimony compelled by a foreign sovereign--the UK. We can dispense with that one. However, the other example has to do with testimony compelled by the United States Senate. Testimony compelled by the Senate cannot be used against a defendant and may taint the entire prosecution--and that hits home.

The excerpt below begins with a reference to Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann was part of the prosecution team in the UK related case, and thought he might be able to pull a fast one. It didn't work, but it was typical of his "style." That's not the real point. The real point follows:

Weissmann knew this was the law at the time — this is the EXACT basis upon which Oliver North and John Poindexter’s convictions were thrown out after Iran-Contra.  North and Poindexter were both subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and both were compelled to testify by a grant of immunity.  Had they refused they would have been in Contempt of Congress.  After they were convicted at trial by Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, their convictions were reversed because Walsh could not establish to the satisfaction of the Court that none of Walsh’s witnesses had watched or read North and Poindexter’s compelled testimony in which they admitted to certain conduct that later formed the basis of the criminal charges brought by Walsh.  Thus, all Walsh’s evidence at trial was presumed to have been “tainted” by the compelled testimony given by North and Poindexter, and their convictions were thrown out on appeal. 

You know who else knows that — a guy named Michael Bromwich, who was one of the prosecutors in the North and Poindexter trials.  Bromwich represents Andrew McCabe. 

THIS is the reason why Durham must be slow and deliberate.  He must be able to show that the evidence relies [sic] on in any criminal case is not “tainted” by evidence obtained by the IG’s investigation through compelled testimony. 

The Allen case shows you exactly what happens on appeal when those issues are not dealt with and resolved BEFORE an indictment is returned.

This is why I keep saying that I'm sure that Senator Graham is coordinating with Bill Barr. It's because he doesn't want to screw up any potential prosecution for a few minutes of grandstanding that would be forgotten within 24 hours. Yes, he could subpoena Comey, for example, but Comey would simply take the Fifth. What would be the point?

John Solomon's New Bombshell: Durham Revisiting Mifsud

John Solomon is reporting this evening that US Attorney John Durham--Bill Barr's handpicked head of the DoJ's Russian Hoax investigation--has reached out to Joseph Mifsud's lawyer, Stephan Roh:

An investigator told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election. 

The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.

Solomon is quick to draw the obvious conclusion: This can only mean that Mueller himself, the conduct of his investigation, and the conclusions his Team Mueller drew are all coming under scrutiny.

Here's one example Solomon gives of anomalies in the Mueller inquisition--and I think we're safe in assuming that Solomon's source pointed this out:

Mueller concluded that Mifsud was a person with extensive Russia ties who planted the story about the Clinton emails in Moscow and then lied about his dealings with Papadopoulos when interviewed by the FBI in 2017. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Mifsud. 

But unlike others accused of misleading Mueller — including Papadopoulos, former Trump adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — Mifsud was not charged with a crime.

Yeah, how does that work? Some mistatements are lies that are prosecuted and others, well ...

Briefly Noted: Lindsey Graham Will Call Papadopoulos To Testify

The Hill is reporting that Lindsey Graham is planning to call George Papadopoulos to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he plans to call former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos to testify as part of a “deep dive” into the early stages of the FBI probe into Russia's election interference. 

“The committee will be looking at the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. We will call Papadopoulos and we will find out what happened,” Graham said at the start of a hearing Tuesday with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Graham said that the panel would conduct a “deep dive into 2016 surveillance by the FBI,” reiterating plans he has long had to investigate the origins of the Russia probe. 

... 

Graham said he would wait to jump-start his investigation until after Justice Department inspector general concludes his own inquiry into the FBI’s actions in applying for the Page warrant.

This may actually be a bigger deal than it may at first appear to be. The reason I say that has to do with John Solomon's latest bombshell report. No, I don't mean his stunning report on Andrew Weissmann's shenanigans--Solomon has a new bombshell that I'll be writing up ASAP. Clearly Solomon is being fed leads.

Separately, the linked The Hill article also reports:

Wray has previously testified that he had no evidence personally that the FBI engaged in illegal surveillance during the 2016 campaign.  

Wray was testifying Tuesday as part of a general oversight hearing focused on the FBI. 

Under questioning from Graham, Wray said that Russia has not been deterred by sanctions and other measures and is still engaging in foreign influence campaigns against U.S. elections. 

“The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections through foreign influence,” Wray said.

I trust I'm not alone in regarding Wray as a complete waste of space.

BIG BIG UPDATE: Why Did Trump Wait So Long To Declassify?

Many have asked this question, frustrated at the slow pace. Today Jed Babbin offers the answer. He doesn't say so in quite those words, but the elements of the answer are largely there.

The need for declass has been obvious since the very start of the Trump administration. Perhaps Trump initially believed that the problem would go away, but with the start of the Mueller Inquisition the overwhelming need for training a spotlight on the Deep State coup attempt could no longer be denied. Unfortunately, by that point declass had become a practical impossibility.

The reason for this practical impossibility of declass lies in the fact that all the agencies involved--and there are many--get a say in the process. The President has too much going on in his life to ride herd over the process. He needs a strong leader with authority to serve as his proxy. We know that Jeff Sessions betrayed the country by recusing himself. The country was further betrayed by Rod Rosenstein who cooperated with the stonewalling agencies--especially the FBI and CIA--rather than with the President. And, importantly, NeverTrumpers in the Senate also worked against the President--who was vocally frustrated by what was going on. But they had Trump over a barrel, as the two top GOP senators on the Judiciary committee clearly stated:

Republican lawmakers [had] long warned the president against firing Sessions and tried to prevent him from doing so by signaling their refusal to confirm a replacement. Graham himself said a year ago there would be “holy hell to pay” if Trump fired Sessions and stated point-blank: “There will be no confirmation hearing for a new attorney general in 2017. Grassley, too, was adamant he would not clear time on the Judiciary Committee’s schedule for confirmation hearings for another attorney general.

The break came in the late political season of 2018 when the Senate returned to Washington, DC. The Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination was the main item before the public eye, but something had changed. Kavanaugh was top of the agenda, but Grassley and Graham openly stated that a change was needed:

Wide Ranging Invterview With Lindsey Graham On All Things Russia Hoax

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."

First Sign Of A Barr Effect?

Has Adam Schiff got the inside word that Peter Strzok was right all along--that after 3 years or more of Deep State investigation and collusion there just ain't no 'there' there? Has McCabe's total outing of the Deep State Coup attempt got him running for cover? Is he trying to position himself for a possibly colder and crueler environment with Bill Barr running DoJ--complete with declassification and making foks available to testify? It sure looks that way. Look what he said on CNN's State of the Union: