Third Party & Independents Archives

How To Characterize Crimes By The Deep State

I have thought about it incessantly and still have no words, or phrase, or level of culpability to form a coherent, intelligent, all encompassing statement as to the level, depth and breadth of the deep state corruption that has gone on in this country throughout the Obama admin and perhaps well before.

To break it down into pieces seems to not do justice to level of culpability, corruption we are facing. Just to peruse a few:

Federal regulation : Obama/Soros/Steyer/others
Uranium One
Epstein Murder
Seth Rich Murder
Hillary's Emails
DNC and MSM
Intel Agency's collusion with foreign gov'ts/persons
CIA/FBI spying on US President
NCIS and Whistle Blower
MSM propagandizing and lying
James Comey and FISA Court
Mueller Investigation
Ukraine Collusion
Biden/Kerry: Ukraine/China/others

That's enough to make my point. Look at how hard the deep state is working to try and take Trump down, to stop any investigations. What would it take to get a George Soros and a Tom Steyer to try and become president to circumvent their crimes from becoming public?

Should we treat each crime separately or lump them all together as one big criminal enterprise under the Obama admin? And, what punitive level do we assign to such a thing? Selling the uranium could be treasonous. Spying on a president/campaign could be Treasonous. Trying to depose a sitting President, attempting a coup on the head of state, that's treason.

And, to who do you assign guilt? Obama is at the head of over half the corrupt enterprises I listed. Is the US gov't willing to try an ex-president for treason? Does the country even have the balls to ferret out crime at the highest levels of gov't?

And, to what level do you pursue people's involvement in these crimes? Each crime may have a cast of a hundred to some thousands. Certainly, the msm is involved in the coup attempt, still are, every second of every day. What should be their punishment and how should they be punished? Fines? Imprisonment? Both? Does their involvement in the coup rise to the level of treason?

I am unable to wrap my head around all this.

Corruption, treason, coup, involving an ex-president, most gov't agencies, several foreign countries, the msm, and a cast of thousands. How do we present that to a court of law?

You Be the Judge, lemme know . . .

Posted by Roy Ellis at December 28, 2019 6:27 PM
Comments
Comment #452042

Repeal the 16th amendment. That would solve the problem of a federal deep state.

States have the ability to tax income. Let the states handle the many federal programs they want to handle. Let those that don’t effect their state fall by the wayside.

It’s a simple cure that wouldn’t cause much hardship because most of the work is done by state governments anyway.

The methods to fund the federal government’s constitutional duties are already defined. A repeal of the 16th would allow the return to those methods.

All we need is a resolve and to educate the citizenry of the benefits of pulling the financial rug out from under the corrupt federal government.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 28, 2019 8:59 PM
Comment #452043

Repealing the 16th doesn’t address the current deep state issues.

Posted by: Roy ellis at December 28, 2019 10:02 PM
Comment #452044

Weary Willie,

That’s a good list to think about, repealing the 16 amendment won’t result in a government that is more accountable, transparent, and responsible, nor an electorate that is more educated.

The situation is much more serious than many realize, and it had 8 years under Obama to grow and fester.

EDUCATION is certainly part of the solution.

The Republicans (and honest Democrats, if any exist) need to thoroughly investigate all of the obvious and potential crimes. It may seem extreme to some, but the U.S.A. was on the brink of dying, and the corrupt deep-state was close to succeeding in gaining control of the government by weaponizing many parts of the government to do the very things the laws were supposed to prohibit in the beginning.

Your list is a good start, and it would be nice to see it expanded (and placed on a web-page, with sources) for everything starting in NOV-2008 up to today.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 28, 2019 11:46 PM
Comment #452050

Taking the control of money from the fed and returning it to the states would put a huge damper on the deep state. It would have to ask states for funding and that would bring it out into the sunshine. That alone would eliminate activity that isn’t necessary or is destructive.

We’re not identifying the problem. The problem is an unchecked federal government funded by the individual who has no power to stop it, and state governments that have been bypassed.

You all do know voting for president is a sham, right? Our votes don’t count as far as electing the president goes. It’s a con to make us think we are in control. We aren’t. Returning supervision of the fed to the state governments would restore accountability.

Would immigration matter if states were responsible for funding it’s own immigrants? Would education be a propaganda machine if states had control of it? Would abortion and bathrooms be an issue if the supreme court wasn’t involved? Freedom From Religion would have to set itself up and get funding from every state to do what it does from Wisconsin now with federal money.

1913 changed this country for the worse. The sooner we realize that the sooner we can start eliminating these superfluous issues and returning the fed to it’s constitutionally authorized position.

You don’t cure an addict by giving them the drugs that make them an addict. Let’s get realistic, folks!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2019 9:38 AM
Comment #452056

Where will the federal government acquire funding?. It has to get it from somewhere?

Why have any taxes at all?
Why not simply let the government create all of their money out of thin air?
I’m joking, but today, the federal government is already doing that to a large degree.
The federal government, in league with the Federal Reserve, is simply creating money out of thin air, so that the federal government can borrow over $1 Trillion per year over the $3.8 Trillion in revenues per year?
Money is being created as debt.
As a result, over 25% of every tax dollar is spent on interest on the $23 Trillion national debt (now large than GDP).
That’s a huge drag on the economy, and serves to increase tax rates.

The federal government requires funding from somewhere, but it is, and has been out-of-control for many decades (possibly, since 1913 when Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve via an executive order).
We don’t need more taxes (despite the majority of Democrats that want to raise taxes).
The federal government needs to control spending, and only a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT via an Article V convention might make that happen (when the states finally decide to pull their heads out, and exercise there right to force Congress to call an Article V convention).

Regarding illegal immigration, the federal government should cease all funding to any sanctuary cities and/or sanctuary states (although, in the first place, the federal government shouldn’t be taxing so much that it can redistribute money to other states anyway).
In Denver, Colorado, an illegal immigrant, who had already been deported 6 times, and had already been arrested 3 times for DUI, was arrested for DUI six days prior to a fatal hit-and-run. Sanctuary-city Denver officials indicated that they will not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the case of the illegal immigrant who was arrested after fleeing the scene of a fatal hit-and-run accident. Denver’s sanctuary laws will allow the criminal non-citizens to be set free on bond.
What the hell?

Currently, Democrats in sanctuary cities and states are importing socialism by incentivizing massive illegal immigration to acquire power and control via more electoral votes, based on the decennial census, which does not verify citizenship.
Democrats are gradually increasing their electorate by importing socialists via massive illegal immigration.
That perhaps may be the most serious danger to the U.S.A., and it won’t be the first time a nation was overrun by chaotic and massive immigration.

That’s why Democrats are creating sanctuary cities and states, and want all of the socialist/leftist extremists they can find who:

  • (1) want the government to take care of them from cradle-to-grave;
  • (2) want the government to wipe their lazy butts for them;
  • (3) want to ride in the wagon while everyone else push the wagon;
  • (4) want the government to help give them citizenship, and give them everything for free, as some master parasites within government gain power by pandering and fostering a pathetic sense of entitlement, and perpetuating the myth that we all can somehow live in luxury at the expense of everyone else;
  • (5) want the government to help them to disguise their jealousy and envy as demands for equality;
  • (6) want to play the race card at every opportunity possible (as demonstrated by their habitual socialist comments, name-calling, racist, rude, and vulgar responses, etc.; similar to orteil, j2t2, phx8, and ohrealy comments over the many years);
  • (7) want to acquire more power via more votes and money via massive illegal immigration:
    • (7.01) because many Democrats, most of the Main Stream Media, others on the left, and similar ilk (despicably) pit U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for votes, by pandering to illegal immigrants for 30+ years for more votes (via more representation in the House, via more U.S. House representatives, via apportionment of representatives (i.e. more electoral votes, and more federal funding), based on population, based on the decennial CENSUS, which does not verify U.S. citizenship;
    • (7.02) because many Democrats are also fighting against a citizenship [x]check-box on the decennial CENSUS, despite the check-box being totally inadequate to prove citizenship. Democrats disguise their desire for power (for THEIR party) as compassion for illegal immigrants, while despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other for votes and money.
    • (7.03) because many Democrats (and most of the main stream media) lie about crime by illegal immigrants, and refuse to report the 2 thousand (or more) homicides per year by criminal non-citizens (source: DHS); and 32% of everyone in federal prison is a criminal non-citizen (source: Source#3: cis.org/Huennekens/32-Federal-Inmates-Are-Aliens);
    • (7.04) because many Democrats (and most of the main stream media) lie about how massive illegal (or legal) immigration is costing U.S. tax payers $296+ Billion (www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/21/mass-immigration-costs-govt-296-billion-year-natio/) per year in net losses (which does not include all costs, and does not include the cost of crime by illegal immigrants); that is a net loss of about $2,349.00 per year per household (126.22 Million households in 2017), or $916 per year per person (U.S. population=323 Million in 2017);
    • (7.05) because many Democrats are calling for open borders;
    • (7.06) because many Democrats are calling to abolish I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement);
    • (7.07) because many Democrats want another shamnesty, like the shamnesty of 1986;
    • (7.08) because many Democrats refuse legislation to require employers to use eVerify (to verify eligibility for employment);
    • (7.09) because many Democrats want to give illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses, and also automatically register them to vote;
    • (7.10) because many Democrats want more mayors like Libby Schaaf (Oakland, CA), who warns illegal immigrants (including criminal illegal immigrants) before an ICE raid to arrest criminal illegal immigrants;
    • (7.11) because many Democrats want more sanctuary cities and states, like California, where Democrats have passed sanctuary city and sanctuary state laws that protect criminal illegal immigrants (i.e. an illegal immigrant by the name of Garcia Zarate (who had already been deported 5 times) can shoot and murder Kate Steinle, and be (www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict/index.html)for that murder, despite Zarate admitting to shooting the weapon that killed Kate Steinle (which should have been, at the very least, manslaughter);
    • (7.12) because many Democrats want to abolish the 2nd amendment, but many Democrats and many on the left call for restricting or eliminating 2nd Amendment rights, and say it is worth it “even if it saves only ONE life”, but conveniently ignore 2 thousand people killed per year by criminal non-citizens (as of JAN-2019; sources: www.cnsnews.com/news/article/craig-bannister/dems-snub-dhs-presentation-detailing-illegal-immigration-threat-during ; www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf );
    • because the common-thread in all of the items above is that many Democrats are despicably pitting U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants against each other to acquire more votes, money, and power.
  • (8) want to resort to mob-like behavior against anyone who disagrees with them (i.e. using forcible and violent suppression of the opposition, which is an element of fascism).
QUESTION: Why do Democrats, socialists, and similar ilk do all of that (above)? What is the common-thread in all of the above?
ANSWER: They do it for more electoral votes (based on the decennial census), more federal money, power, and control for democrats.

Yes, the tax system is a mess, and the federal government should not be taxing so much that it can redistribute money to other states on such a massive scale, but it is difficult to see how repealing the 16th amendment will help much to solve illegal immigration, education, the electoral college, the tax system, etc.

  • (1) The federal government should have little (if anything) to do with education (that should be left to the states).
  • (2) Enforcement of existing laws, and a some changes for better enforcement (i.e. eliminate asylum abuse; stop giving illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses; stop registering illegal immigrants to vote; etc.) should be the duty of all states and the federal government (as originally intended within the U.S. Constitution).
  • (3) The federal tax system is unfair, and there needs to be a top limit, and it needs to be a flat income tax only on income above the poverty-level. Also, for obvious reasons, the federal government does not need to be taxing so much that it can afford to send trillions back to states.
  • (4) We need an Article V convention to address:
    • a BALANCED-BUDGET-AMENDMENT,
    • a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL-AMENDMENT,
    • a FLAT-INCOME-TAX-PERCENTAGE-LIMIT AMENDMENT,
    • an ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION-AMENDMENT (or clarification of the 14th amendment),
    • and possibly, some other amendments … etc.
Of course, none of any of that matters IF there is no enforcement of existing laws (as is the case with illegal immigration in many sanctuary cities and states, being arrested repeatedly and then released repeatedly, after repeated crimes and homicides over many years).
Democrats are trying to turn RED states to BLUE states via massive illegal immigration, and pandering to socialists with promises of all sorts of free stuff, by illegal voting on our elections, and Democrats don’t give a damn about the cost, chaos, victims, or 2000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens.
Unfortunately, the Democrats’ despicable plan appears to be working (look at the border counties).

Posted by: d.a.n at December 29, 2019 12:29 PM
Comment #452057
the federal government shouldn’t be taxing so much that it can redistribute money to other states anyway).

…and how would we stop that from happening?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2019 2:20 PM
Comment #452058

Via an Article V Convention .
The states have the power, if and when they choose to use it.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 29, 2019 2:31 PM
Comment #452060

One of the reasons we have never had an Article 5 convention is because we’ve never had an Article 5 convention. If that’s all it takes to render it moot…?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2019 3:52 PM
Comment #452062

The states have one very important power, if they need it, and that is Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Hopefully, before things get too out-of-control, the states will exercise their right to rein-in the following abuses by the federal government:

  • out-of-control spending;
  • growing the debt ever larger ($23.1 Trillion as of DEC-2019);
  • excessive inflation due to excessive borrowing of $1 Trillion per year by the creation of new money as debt;
  • regressive taxation;
  • endless and unnecessary wars;
  • perversion of the education systems by leftists and socialists;
  • $70 Billion per year in Medicare fraud, waste, and corruption;
  • healthcare becoming less affordable as government continues to meddle with healthcare; healthcare costs have gradually increased since government started meddling in healthcare in the 1960s, and prices increased at a faster rate than CPI, until 50% of every U.S. dollar spent on healthcare is already spent by the government:
    • Normalized Price Index versus (C)onsumer Price Index and (M)edical-care Price Index:
    • 40.0|==================================
    • 37.5|==================================M
    • 35.0|=================================M
    • 32.5|================================M
    • 30.0|===============================M
    • 27.5|==============================M
    • 25.0|=============================M
    • 22.5|============================M
    • 20.0|===========================M
    • 17.5|=========================M
    • 15.0|========================M=========C
    • 12.5|=======================M======C
    • 10.0|======================M===C
    • 07.5|====================M==C
    • 05.0|==================M=C
    • 02.5|M==C==M==C==M==C
    • 00.0|==================================
    • Year: 1930 1940 1950 1960_1970_1980_1990_2000_2010
  • lawlessness: Congress is ignoring more than two-thirds of the states that have requested an Article V Convention; the states must call their own Article V Convention, because Congress is actually not needed for two-thirds of the states to propose amendments (and three fourths to ratify an amendment);
  • lawlessness: massive illegal immigration incentivized by democrats;
  • lawlessness: ignoring existing illegal immigration laws, despite the monetary cost, the human cost, and 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens (which is the failure of the governments’ most basid duty to protect its citizens);
  • $275 Billion per year in net monetary losses due to illegal immigration (incentivized by democrats for more electoral votes, money, and power);
  • tens of thousands of non-citizens voting on our elections each year (i.e. 81% of people convicted of voter fraud from 1979-to-2018 are democrats);
  • excessive selfishness and extremism;

Posted by: d.a.n at December 29, 2019 4:31 PM
Comment #452063

As the crude saying goes, “Shit in one hand, and hope in the other. See which hand fills up faster.”.

There were only 5 amendments ratified in the first 120 years of our country’s history, after the Bill of Rights. One every 28 years Since then, in the next 120 years, “our government” has ratified 12 amendments. That is one every 10 years. Three of those in 1 year alone!

Based on the condition of our governing body, who benefited most by those amendments? The women’s vote doubled the electorate with dependents. The 18 yr. vote added inexperience and those without property. 2 aided a takeover of the liquor industry by 6 major corporations. 2 facilitated the fed’s control over the state governments and the individual. One inserted the House into the path of succession to the presidency and established mandatory assemblies of congress. One limited the president’s term in office. One allows the congress to vacate a presidency. One guarantees an automatic pay raise.

Every amendment in the 20th century benefited, either directly or indirectly, the federal government. Every time they did it without a convention of the states. The 17th amendment basically preempts the states calling for a convention as both houses must pass the resolution granting it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 29, 2019 5:28 PM
Comment #452081

Three fourths of the states ratified those amendments, so the states are culpable too.

The states can change it if they don’t like it.

Weary Willie wrote: The women’s vote doubled the electorate with dependents.
HHMMmmmm … surely you’re not saying allowing women to vote is wrong?
Weary Willie wrote: The 18 yr. vote added inexperience and those without property.
IF you’re old enough to be drafted to fight wars, shouldn’t you be allowed to vote?
Weary Willie wrote: 2 aided a takeover of the liquor industry by 6 major corporations.
Yeah, the 18th amendment was a mistake, that was repealed by the 21st amendment.
Weary Willie wrote: One inserted the House into the path of succession to the presidency and established mandatory assemblies of congress.
Some people have recently theorized that Nancy Pelosi was going to also try to impeach VP Mike Pence, so that she would become POTUS (since the order of succession is President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and then the eligible heads of federal executive departments who form the president’s Cabinet).

Weary Willie wrote: One limited the president’s term in office.
That’s a good thing, in order to prevent one person from accumulating too much power.

Weary Willie wrote: The 17th amendment basically preempts the states calling for a convention as both houses must pass the resolution granting it.
The 17th amendment doesn’t bother me that much (i.e. there are pros and cons to the past method and today’s method of direct election of senators), because the prior method was not working, and resulted in many vacancies for long periods of time due to dead-lock at the state-level. It is interesting that the Senate opposed the 17th amendment for a long time, until the states were nearing enough (two thirds states in favor of an Article V convention, and Congress finally proposed the 17th Amendment itself, and three-fourths of the states to ratify that amendment (and that’s a high bar to acheive). Good or bad, the 17th amendment doesn’t appear to be the root of most of the nation’s problems. Lawlessness is a bigger problem, along with these problems listed here.
Posted by: d.a.n at December 30, 2019 8:10 AM
Comment #452082

Clinton Foundation

Epsteins Money Source

Posted by: Roy ellis at December 30, 2019 10:25 AM
Comment #452095

We have the amendments to the constitution that the majority of citizens of a significant majority of states wanted. Enormous political will is required to amend the constitution. I am not prepared to second guess the citizens and states responsible for the amendments we have today. They followed the rules established by our founders. That will have to be good enough.

We all believe we could do better in fashioning a governing document that would serve our needs better than what we have now. And…We are ALL wrong.

WE the people have voted for the constitution we now have. When sufficient political will is amassed, it will be changed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 30, 2019 6:41 PM
Comment #452097
Enormous political will is required to amend the constitution.

Do you seriously believe an amendment to guarantee a congressional pay raise would have been ratified in this environment if your statement was true? Political will involves letting the electorate know what’s being voted on. The 27th was ratified with barely a hint of a public discussion. It may have taken 200+ years to do it, but we sure as hell weren’t discussing it all that time.

As for the 16th, 17th, and the Federal Reserve Act, how much of a discussion could have taken place by the electorate about the entirety of those changes when it was before the states without in some cases electricity, television, radio, internet? What they were told about the 16th was a lie. It was sold as being limited to 1.5% for the top 1% of wage earners. Did the people have accurate information to make a decision? No! They were being lied to. There is skepticism that the Secretary of State actually ratified the amendment.

We all know of the “paradox” that could happen if we went back in time and screwed something up. The time traveler comes back to his own time and everything is different. He’s the only one to realize it. Everyone else has lived the life the time traveler created for them.

How can we be sure the epidemic of amendment ratification during the 20th century was beneficial if we have no alternative to compare the results to? d.a.n says lawlessness is a bigger problem, yet fails to even consider the amendments may have caused that problem. He seems to think they’re unrelated and couldn’t possibly be causal.

Consider this: The up and coming national powerhouse suddenly acquires a major influx of capital and gives control of all that capital to a private corporation. One year later one guy gets assassinated and the banks of the world are financing the first world war. Twenty years later the bank convinces the entire country all their money just vanished. Lots of government programs to help are promised and paid for by the bank while the constitution is converted to a “living document”. Then they’re financing the second world war and whalla! The United States is the only intact economy in the world!

Would any of that have happened if the world wasn’t confronted by a government that had suddenly acquired that much power?

Would the federal government be able to provide military hardware to local police forces if they didn’t have that unlimited (yes, it’s unlimited, for now) resource? How hard would it be to declare war if 50 states had to pay for it instead of one bank printing money?

To think that it is not possible the 16th and 17th amendments could be the cause of our current condition is tantamount to saying it is not possible the rock on your foot broke your toe. The first step in problem solving is identifying the problem.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 30, 2019 7:49 PM
Comment #452100

I see some evidence and my sense tells me that corruption in the US is at it’s highest, IMO. Had Hil won in 2016 that corrupt regime would have commandeered the country and most probably would have led to a civil war at some point downstream.

Expand on a couple of examples: The Obama admin would regulate a selected company to drive the stock price down. Then Steyer and similar would buy the stock and spread the wealth. But, the Obama admin is untouchable.

A big pharma will take a 30 cent pill, add some baking soda and remarket the pill for maybe $300 and so on … We are supposed to believe the prescribing doctor doesn’t know, the patient doesn’t know and the taxpayer pays the medicare part, the much larger part of the cost.

Then, you have large scale fraud like Uranium one, like the Bidens, Pelosis, and Kerrys family peddling influence in pissing away foreign aid dollars.

My LG service says I will have unlimited data but I believe the thruput is about 60wpm. But, I don’t really know. Why is there no $50 dollar gadget I can buy to measure my datarate? Is some companies being paid not to manufacture one?

IMO, the GOP and dim parties have been tag teaming the citizens for decades. And, they damn sure don’t want to hear about Article V PII. I would bet that if the 50 governors were to stop cooporating with the fed on certain issues they could bring the fed around. Same if the people would do the same but, BUT, we are all sheeple, willing to kick back in the ole lounge chair, pop a cap and let the fed handle it.

If an issue that people care a little about comes up peeople can push back. Witness this 2A Sanctuary movement in the state of Virginia. Leaders immediately popped up, people organized, rallies being held, effort to impeach the gov and Senator Shalwell, and so on …

The older generation is dying off, the younger generation seems ignorant of the issues…

If left to run its course it will be painful, mass hunger, people living thru heat and cold with no cover, and so on …

In a weakened state how long would it take our enemies to pick our bones?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 30, 2019 8:56 PM
Comment #452101

The inaction on all this corruption by the so-called Gov’t is deafening

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 30, 2019 8:58 PM
Comment #452102

Roy Ellis, do you thing everything you mentions would be possible had the 16th not been ratified?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 30, 2019 9:47 PM
Comment #452103

Only thing I know about the 16th is the name.

But, I do know mccain was not a cranky old man as pundits and msm are running with.

He was THE staunch GLOBALIST, opn borders and all that… dims best friend.

See 452100 para 6.

Posted by: Roy ellis at December 30, 2019 9:55 PM
Comment #452122

The 16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Clearly, that’s too much power, and as is always the case, power corrupts.

As a result, we have an unfair and (mostly) regressive tax system, as shown here.

Two-thirds of the states could fix this IF they wanted to, by meeting for an Article V Convention to put a top-limit on the percentage in which a person can be taxed, and it should apply to ALL types of income equally.
Why should earned labor income be taxed at tax rates higher than tax rates on capital gains?
What’s wrong with a FLAT income tax rate?
Why is there a cap on Social Security taxes (that makes it a regressive tax).
Why are some types of income not subject to Social Security taxation?
Why are some types of income not subject to Medicare taxation?

Unfortunately, there is a lot of money lost from Social Security and Medicare due to fraud, waste, and corruption, but it’s unlikely that will ever change, until those systems collapse because of it (i.e. $70 Billion per year in Medicare fraud; $Trillions borrowed from Social Security, which now requires borrowing to fund it).

Posted by: d.a.n at December 31, 2019 3:24 PM
Comment #452124

Weary; without doing any research I am willing to believe that each state that voted for an amendment to the constitution did so with much debate among state legislators…elected by the public.

You may find blame anywhere you wish. You may believe some amendments should not have been enacted. I am content that what is in our constitution is the will of the people.

WE the PEOPLE have argued with each other over the role of government, and voted for heroes and villains to lead us since the founding of our nation. There has never been a time when we all agreed on anything related to the national government.

We should remember what was required to get state ratification of the first ten amendments to the constitution. There was plenty of resistance even to the “Bill of Rights”.

I look upon the national governance as a see-saw that rises and falls with public opinion. Much like the stock market, it is the decision of millions of (investors) voters that make it work. Even the best and brightest of financial soothsaying are not always right; just as those who we elected to govern us are often wrong. What is most important is that the see-saw never becomes too heavy as to fall and never rise.

Have we just been lucky? Or, as I believe, do the people eventually do the right thing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 31, 2019 4:08 PM
Comment #452132

Didd anyone see a google news report on oig info about john mccain and fusion gps. Cant find anything on it today .

Posted by: Roy ellis at December 31, 2019 7:45 PM
Comment #452136

I tend to agree, Royal. The senate passed the bill in 1908 and it was ratified in 1913. The SC put their stamp on it.

With the 16th we know what we’ve got. Going to another type of taxation would be a fearful thing for many and maybe rightly so.

There are several issues up for ratification under article V PII. On the surface they all sound good, reasonable. But, it’s the ingredients in the soup that makes the soup good or bad. Like campaign finance. Most will say it needs to be controlled. But, the fine print has yet to be determined. How do some 50 states boil it down to something the majority will agree too. I know u kain’t end in too but it feels good.

I believe it will be hard to get an issue to an amendment thru V PII but, that’s as it shud be IMO.

It seems about impossible to make a law that the criminal mind can’t find a way around or will certainly die trying.

Like when Joe Biden was hired by Burisma the IRS was after him for $110k in back taxes. Like, Tom FInton of Judicial Watch says the planning and operation against President Trump is sedition and he defines the overall effort as a coup d’etat. And yet even he is not sure that anyone will do jail time. Like Hil and govies using private, unclassified commo, primarily blackberry’s, to communicate with the world. Like Judicial Watch asked for records of certain DOS people talking about Fusion GPS. DOS gave him information that in Nov 2016 a member called the Russian embassy and talked to their political officer for ten minutes (Ru Intel). All the text of the DOS memo was blanked as ‘classified’ although the conversation took place on the guys blackberry. The left ignores the law, has no fear of the law. Do you find that amazing, unsettling?

There is talk on the grapevine that the for the 2020 election the dims assigned electoral duty will cast their votes for the dim candidate regardless of the popular vote per state.

Are the dims socialist, communist, stupid, did Soros cause all this, is it greed, or just power hungry people?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 31, 2019 9:12 PM
Comment #452137

A Virginia lawyer who posts about certain laws being proposed by Va. dims says FB has labeled him a political operative. He had to send in and wait for an ID card. He can only post by submitting the ID card number to facebook. Apparently this is a normal practice by facebook. I tried to share the post but … . uuuuhhhoooo, some kind of error occurred.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 31, 2019 9:51 PM
Comment #452139

d.a.n, I don’t think suffrage was bad. It was inevitable, but look at what it’s lead to. It suffers from excess and bloat and lacks character and morals. I can’t say the amendment was wrong. I’m saying the government benefited from the action through dependency and family destruction.

Women were a protected class before they could vote. You never hit a woman. Walk on the outside of the sidewalk. Give her your coat. Defend her honor. Now they’re a protected class with the ability to play offense. Could they have yielded the power to legalize abortion if the federal government did not have the money to influence the decision?

I believe the 18 year old vote was a simple case of pandering. The government could have simply drafted 21 yo. and above. End of discussion. It didn’t, did it? The government benefited from the amendment. Would the federal government be able to afford the perpetual wars that kill 18 year old voters if the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified?


Royal Flush, I agree the people who discussed and ratified these various amendments, mainly the 16th, did it with good intentions. I simply doubt they understood or cared about the ramifications of their actions after a century of use.

Perhaps the people simply thought it was just another thing the government does and the government would be the one’s who would have to deal with it. The general public could have thought it only affected the rich. Does that sound familiar?

State legislatures probably thought it would be a relief to avoid being taxed by enumeration and the fees associated with funding the federal government could be taken care of by the richest citizens in the country. It sounds like a win/win, right? Too good to be true, yes? Look as us now!

Do you think states would have considered limiting it’s transportation industry to an arbitrary speed limit if the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified?

We keep parroting the saying, “If you’re willing to trade your freedom for your security, you deserve neither”. I don’t think we realize we’ve already done that, over a century ago. We just can’t see it, or don’t want to admit it.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 31, 2019 10:49 PM
Comment #452140

My Dad once said, “I refuse to believe our government could do that.”.

He didn’t say he couldn’t believe it, he said he refused to believe it. He knew it was possible. He just wouldn’t admit it could actually happen.

I think government depends on that.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 31, 2019 11:01 PM
Comment #452141

The 16th amendment can be replaced with the original funding mechanism defined in the original constitution.

There’s no longer a reason to maintain the lie. The states can maintain their own social security programs.

Social security was born in a dust storm. Why didn’t it end when the dust storm ended?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 1, 2020 12:19 AM
Comment #452153

The problem is that it is impossible to change or eliminate social programs that people have been paying into most of their lives.
Borrowing is now required to fund Social Security.
Medicare loses $70 Brillion per year in waste and fraud.
The national debt is over $23.1 Trillion and growing every year since 1982.
25% of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on the #21.3 Trillion national debt.
The federal government has been borrowing about $1 Trillion per year for the past 12 years.
And, the National Debt has grown from 60% to 105% of GDP.

People should not rely on Social Security beyond 2034 (if not sooner), when Social Security payments may have to be reduced by 21% (if not more), and that may be the beginning of the end if the federal government continues to borrow and spend like it has since 1982.
That is, the problem is that it is impossible to change or eliminate social programs that people have been paying into most of their lives, until those systems eventually fail, the hard and painful way.
One way or another, we will get our education.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 1, 2020 11:47 AM
Comment #452154

Roy asks; “The left ignores the law, has no fear of the law. Do you find that amazing, unsettling?”

Great question Roy. The Left even ignores our constitution when it suits them. President Lincoln said that WE the people should overthrow congress when they act against the constitution. Could anyone imagine the House of Representatives impeaching a president with articles that don’t include any “high crimes or misdemeanors”? The Senate should quickly dispose of this nonsense.

There is no historical tradition of congress acting to help any special interest group. The individual states have relinquished much of the power granted to them by our Founders. We must insist that the states take back that power.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 1, 2020 2:34 PM
Comment #452155

You’re absolutely correct d.a.n.; it is politically impossible to end social programs that people have been paying into all their working lives. I would not vote to end my medicare or social security. Who would vote to end medicaid?

The most insidious lie the Democrats have come up with now is that “Medicare for all” is free. I have not heard a single Democrat insist that all my Medicare premiums, paid over my lifetime, be refunded.

Does Bernie or Elizabeth explain to their adherents how much it will actually cost them for “free” health care?

The second most hateful lie being told by Democrats is that forgiving student debt will benefit everyone.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 1, 2020 2:51 PM
Comment #452156

Have ya’ll seen these 3 one hour OANN reports about money laundering by Hunter Biden in Ukraine ?

It isn’t yet 100% definitive proof, but it looks very, very suspicious.
Hunter Biden said he was broke, but bought a house DEC_2019 for $2.5 Million.
Did Joe Biden know Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma when he threatened to withhold $1.5 Billion in funding to Ukraine, unless they fired investigator, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma?

Here’s another good report about the Clinton Foundation.

It should be more embarrassments for the FBI and DOJ for not investigating these seriously already.
Perhaps the FBI and DOJ should be renamed to the Federal Bureau of Incompetence (FBI) and the Department Of Jerks (DOJ) if they fail to investigate these things, and hold the offenders accountable?
Sure, not all employees are bad, but how can so much corruption be so wide-spread, and partisan motivated in favor of Democrats?

The Inspector General’s report found illegal activity by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants (repeatedly).

As more fully described in Chapter Five of the IG report, based upon the information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained the following 7 (of 17) significant inaccuracies and omissions:

  • (01) Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with [Carter] Page, including that [Carter] Page had been approved as an “operational contact” for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that [Carter] 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;
  • (02) 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 handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures;
  • (04) Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who 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) the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation on Person 1 a few days before the FISA application was filed;
  • (04) 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, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File-Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;
  • (05) Omitted Papadopoulos’s consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS (Confidential Human Source) 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;
  • (06) Omitted [Carter] Page’s consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that [Carter] Page had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of [Carter] Page’s emails; if true, those statements were intension with claims in Report 95 that [Carter] Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and
  • (07) Included [Carter] Page’s consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that [Carter] Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements [Carter] Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that [Carter] Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.
    None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications. Further, as we discuss lat er, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications. The fa ilure to provide accurate and complete information to the OI Attorney concerning [Carter] Page’s prior relationship with another U.S. government agency (item 1 above) was particularly concerning because t he OI Attorney had specifically asked the case agent in late September 2016 whether Carter Page had a current or prior relationship with the other agency. In response to that inquiry, the case agent advised the OI Attorney that [Carter] Page’s relationship was “dated” (claiming it was when [Carter] Page lived in Moscow in 2004-2007) and “outside scope.” This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that [Carter] Page was approved as an ” operational contact” of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after [Carter] Page had left Moscow). Moreover, rather than being “outside scope,” [Carter] Page’s status with the other agency overlapped in time with some of the interactions between [Carter] Page and known Russian intelligence officers that were relied upon in the FISA applications to establish probable cause. Indeed, [Carter] Page had provided information to the other agency about his past contacts with a Russian Intelligence Officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI relied upon in t he first FISA application (and subsequent renewal applications). According to the information from the other agency, an employee of the other agency had assessed that [Carter] Page “candidly described his contact with” Intelligence Officer 1 to the other agency. Thus, the FBI relied upon [Carter] Page’s contacts with Intelligence Officer 1, among others, in support of its probable cause statement in the FISA application, while failing to disclose to OI or the FISC that (1) [Carter] Page had been approved as an operat ional contact by the other agency during a five-year period that overlapped with allegations in the FISA application, (2) [Carter] Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts that he had with I ntelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals, and (3) the other agency’s employee had given a positive assessment of [Carter] Page’s candor. Further, we were concerned by the FBI’s inaccurate assertion in the application that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,” which we were told was primarily a reference to Steele’s role in the FIFA corruption investigation. We found that the team had speculated that Steele’s prior reporting had been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings without clearing the representation with Steele’s handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures. According to the handling agent, he would not have approved the representation in the application because only “some” of Steele’s prior reporting had been corroborated-most of it had notand because Steele’s information was never used in a criminal proceeding. We concluded that these failures created the inaccurate impression in the applications that at least some of Steele’s past reporting had been deemed sufficiently reliable by prosecutors to use in court, and that more of his information had been corroborated than was actually the case.
    We found no evidence that the OI Attorney, NSD supervisors, ODAG officials, or Yates were made aware of these issues before the first [FISA] application was submitted to the court. Although we also found no evidence that Comey had been made aware of these issues at the time he certified the application, as discussed in our analysis in Chapter Eleven, multiple factors made it difficult for us to precisely determine the extent of FBI leadership’s knowledge as to each fact that was not shared with OI and not included, or inaccurately stated, in the FISA applications. These factors included, among other things, limited recollections, the inability to question Comey or refresh his recollection with relevant, classified documentation because of his lack of a security clearance, and the absence of meeting minutes that would show the specific details shared with Comey and McCabe during briefings they received, beyond the more general investigative updates that we know they were provided.
    FBI Activities After the First FISA Application and FBI Efforts to Assess Steele’s Election Reporting:
    On October 31, 2016, shortly after the first FISA application was signed, an article entitled “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump,” was published by Mother Jones. Steele admitted to the FBI that he was a source for the article, and the FBI closed him as a CHS (Confidential Human Source) for cause in November 2016. However, as we describe below, despite having been closed for cause, the Crossfire Hurricane team continued to obtain information from Steele through Bruce Ohr, who met with the FBI on 13 occasions to pass along information he had been provided by Steele. In Chapter Six, we describe the events that followed Steele’s closing as a CHS, including the FBI’s receipt of information from several third parties who had acquired copies of the Steele election reports, use of information from the Steele reports in an inter-agency assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 elections, and continuing efforts to learn about Steele and his source network and to verify information from the reports following Steele’s closure. Starting in December 2016, FBI staff participated in an inter-agency effort to assess the Russian government’s intentions and actions concerning the 2016 U.S. elections. We learned that whether and how to present Steele’s reporting in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was a topic of significant discussion between the FBI and the other agencies participating in it. According to FBI staff, as the inter-agency editing process for the ICA progressed, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) expressed concern about the lack of vetting for the Steele election reporting and asserted it did not merit inclusion in the body of the report. An FBI Intel Section Chief told us the CIA viewed it as “internet rumor.” In contrast, as we describe in Chapter Six, the FBI, including Comey and McCabe, sought to include the reporting in the ICA. Limited information from the Steele reporting ultimately was presented in an appendix to the ICA. FBI efforts to verify information in the Steele election reports, and to learn about Steele and his source network continued after Steele’s closure as a CHS. In November and December 2016, FBI officials traveled abroad and met with persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had knowledge of his work. Information these FBI officials obtained about Steele was both positive and negative. We found, however, that the information about Steele was not placed in his FBI CHS file. We further learned that the FBI’s Validation Management Unit (VMU) completed a human source validation review of Steele in early 2017. The VMU review found that Steele’s past criminal reporting was “minimally corroborated,” and included this finding in its report that was provided to the Crossfire Hurricane team. This determination by the VMU was in tension with the source characterization statement included in the initial FISA application, which represented that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.” The VMU review also did not identify any corroboration for Steele’s election reporting among the information that the Crossfire Hurricane team had collected. However, the VMU did not include this finding in its written validation report and therefore members of the Crossfire Hurricane team and FBI executives were unaware of it.
    We also found that the FBI’s interviews of Steele, his Primary Sub-source, a second sub-source, and other investigative activity, revealed potentially serious problems with Steele’s descriptions of information in his reports. For example, as detailed in Chapters Six and Eight, the Primary Sub-source made statements during his/her January 2017 FBI interview that were inconsistent with multiple sections of the Steele reports, including some that were relied upon in the FISA applications. Among other things, regarding the allegations attributed to Person 1, the Primary Subsource’s account of these communications, if true, was not consistent with and, in fact, contradicted the allegations of a “well-developed conspiracy” in Reports 95 and 102 attributed to Person 1. We further determined t hat the Crossfire Hurricane team was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations regarding Carter Page contained in Steele’s election reporting which the FBI relied on in the FISA applications. We were told by the Supervisory Intel Analyst that, as of September 2017, the FBI had corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting, and much of that was publicly available information. Most relevant to the Carter Page FISA applications, the allegations contained in Reports 80, 94, 95, and 102, which were relied upon in all four applications, remained uncorroborated and, in several instances, were inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team.
    [several lines redacted]
    The Three Renewal Applications for Continued FISA Authority on Carter Page:
    As noted above, the FBI filed three renewal applications wit h t he FISC, on January 12, April 7, and June 29, 2017. In addition to repeating the seven significant errors contained in the first FISA application and outlined above, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the three renewal applications, based upon information known to the FBI after the first application and before one or more of the renewals. We describe the circumstances surrounding these 10 errors in Chapter Eight, and provide a chart listing additional errors in Appendix One. As more fully described in Chapter Eight, the renewal applications:
  • (08) Omitted the fact that Steele’s Primary Subsource, who the FBI found credible, had made statements in January 2017 raising significant questions about the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications, including, for example, that he/she did not recall any discussion wit h Person 1 concerning Wikileaks and there was “nothing bad” about the communications between the Kremlin and the Trump team, and that he/she did not report to Steele in July 2016 that [Carter] Page had met with Sechin;
  • (09) Omitted [Carter] Page’s prior relationship with another U.S. government agency, despite being reminded by the other agency in June 2017, prior to the filing of the final renewal application, about [Carter] Page’s past status with that other agency; instead of including this information in the final renewal application, the OGC Attorney altered an email from the other agency so that the email stated that [Carter] Page was “not a source” for the other agency, which the FBI affiant relied upon in signing t he final renewal application;
  • (10) Omitted information from persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had direct knowledge of his work-related performance, including statements that Steele had no history of reporting in bad faith but “[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment,” “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value,” “didn’t always exercise great judgment,” and it was ” not clear what he would have done to validate” his reporting;
  • (11) Omitted information obtained from Ohr about Steele and his election reporting, including that ( 1) Steele’s reporting was going to Clinton’s presidential campaign and others, (2) Simpson was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media, and (3) Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President”;
  • (12) Failed to update the description of Steele after information became known to the Crossfire Hurricane team, from Ohr and others, that provided greater clarity on t he political origins and connections of Steele’s reporting, including that Simpson was hired by someone associated with the Democratic Party and/or the DNC;
  • (13) Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did not believe that Steele directly provided information to the reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo News article, even though there was no information in the Woods File to support this claim and even after certain Crossfire Hurricane officials learned in 2017, before the third renewal application, of an admission that Steele made in a court filing about his interactions with the news media in the late summer and early fall of 2016;
  • (14) Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation report that Steele was suitable for continued operation but that his past contributions to the FBI’s criminal program had been ” minimally corroborated,” and instead continued to assert in the source characterization statement that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings”;
  • (15) Omitted Papadopoulos’s statements to an FBI CHS in late October 2016 denying that the Trump campaign was involved in the circumstances of the DNC email hack;
  • (16) Omitted Joseph Mifsud’s denials to the FBI that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information Papadopoulos shared with the FFG (suggesting that the campaign received an offer or suggestion of assistance from Russia); and
  • (17) Omitted information indicating that [Carter] Page played no role in the Republican platform change on Russia’s annexation of Ukraine as alleged in the Report 95, which was inconsistent with a factual assertion relied upon to support probable cause in all four FISA applications.
    Among the most serious of the 10 additional errors we found in the renewal applications was the FBI’s failure to advise OJ or the court of the inconsistencies, described in detail in Chapter Six, between Steele and his Primary Sub-source on the reporting relied upon in the FISA applications. Although the Primary Sub-source’s account of these communications, if t rue, was not consistent with and, in fact, contradicted the allegations of a “well-developed conspiracy” in Reports 95 and 102 attributed to Person 1 the FBI did not share this information with 01. The FBI also failed to share other inconsistencies with OJ, including the Primary Sub-source’s account of the alleged meeting between [Carter] Page and Sechin in Steele’s Report 94 and his/her descriptions of the source network. The fact that the Primary Sub-source’s account contradicted key assertions attributed to his/her own sub-sources in Steele’s Reports 94, 95, and 102 should have generated significant discussions between the Crossfire Hurricane team and OJ prior to submitting the next FISA renewal application. According to Evans, had OJ been made aware of the information, such discussions might have included the possibility of foregoing the renewal request altogether, at least until the FBI reconciled the differences between Steele’s account and the Primary Sub-source’s account to the satisfaction of 01. However, we found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team ever considered whether any of the inconsistencies warranted reconsideration of the FBI’s assessment of the reliability of the Steele reports or notice to OJ before the subsequent renewal applications were filed. Instead, the second and third renewal applications provided no substantive information concerning the Primary Sub-source’s interview, and offered only a brief conclusory statement that the FBI met with the Primary Sub-source “[i]n an effort to fu rther corroborate Steele’s reporting” and found the Primary Sub-source to be “truthful and cooperative.” We believe that including this statement, without also informing OJ and the court that the Primary Subsource’s account of events contradicted key assertions in Steele’s reporting, left a misimpression that the Primary Sub-source had corroborated the Steele reporting. I ndeed, in a letter to the FISC in July 2018, before learning of t hese inconsistencies from us during this review, the Department defended the reliability of Steele’s reporting and the FISA applications by citing, in part, to the Primary Sub-source’s interview as “additional information corroborating [Steele’s] reporting” and noting the FBI’s determination that he/she was “truthful and cooperative.” The renewal applications also continued to fail to include information regarding Carter Page’s past relationship with another U.S. government agency, even though both OJ and members of the Crossfire Hurricane expressed concern about the possibility of a prior relationship following interviews that [Carter] Page gave to news outlets in April and May 2017 stating that he had assisted other U.S. government agencies in the past. As we describe in Chapter Eight, in June 2017, SSA 2, who was to be the affiant for Renewal Application No. 3 and had been the affiant for the first t wo renewals, told us that he wanted a definitive answer to whether [Carter] Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application. This led to interactions between the OGC Attorney assigned to Crossfire Hurricane and a liaison from the other U.S. government agency. In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison’s recoUect_ion that [Carter] Page had or continued to have 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 [Carter] Page did, in fact have a prior relationship with that other agency. The’ next morning, immediately following a 28 minute telephone call between the OGC Attorney and the OI Attorney, the OGC Attorney forwarded to th~ OI . Attorney the liaison’s email (but not the original email from the OGC Attorney to the liaison setting out the questions he was asking). The OI Attorney responded to the OGC Attorney, “thanks I think we are good and no need to carry it any further.” However, when the OGC Attorney subsequently sent the liaison’s email to SSA 2 the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words “not a source” into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that [Carter] Page was “not a source” for the other agency. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application that again failed to disclose [Carter] Page’s past relationship with the other agency. Consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978, following the OIG’s discovery that the OGC Attorney had altered and sent the email to SSA 2, who thereafter relied on it to swear out the third FISA application, the OIG promptly informed the Attorney General and the FBI Director and provided them with the relevant information about the OGC Attorney’s actions. None of the inaccuracies and omissions that we identified in the renewal applications were brought to the attention of OI before the applications were filed. As a result, similar to the first application, the Department officials who reviewed one or more of the renewal applications, including Yates, Boente, and Rosenstein, did not have accurate and complete information at the time they approved them. We do not speculate whether or how having accurate and complete information might have influenced the decisions of senior Department leaders who supported the four FISA applications, or the court, if they had known all of the relevant information. Nevertheless, it was the obligation of the FBI agents and supervisors who were aware of the information to ensure that the FISA applications were “scrupulously accurate” and that OI, the Department’s decision makers, and ultimately, the court had the opportunity to consider the additional information and the information omitted from the first application. The individuals involved did not meet this obligation.
    Conclusions Concerning All Four FISA Applications:
    We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.
    We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. In most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant. On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh the probative value of the information. Further, the failure to update OI on all significant case developments relevant to the FISA applications led us to conclude that the agents and supervisors did not give appropriate attention or treatment to the facts that cut against probable cause, or reassess the information supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. The agents and SSAs also did not follow, or appear to even know, the requirements in the Woods Procedures to re-verify the factual assertions from previous applications that are repeated in renewal applications and verify source characterization statements with the CHS handling agent and document the verification in the Woods File.
    That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within t he FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process. FBI Headquarters established a chain of command for Crossfire Hurricane that included close supervision by senior CD managers, who then briefed FBI leadership throughout the investigation. Although we do not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about an investigation, or senior officials to know all the details of cases about which they are briefed, in a sensitive, high-priority matter like this one, it is reasonable to expect that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight, consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility. We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliability of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not.
    In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command. For these reasons, we recommend that the FBI review the performance of the employees who had responsibility for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers and supervisors in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, including senior officials, and take any action deemed appropriate. In addition, given the extensive compliance failures we identified in this review, we believe that additional OIG oversight work is required to assess the FBI’s compliance with Department and FBI FISA-related policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that will further examine the FBI’s compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counter-terrorism investigations. This audit will be informed by the findings in this review, as well as by our prior work over the past 15 years on the Department’s and FBI’s use of national security and surveillance authorities, including authorities under FISA, as detailed in Chapter One.
    Issues Relating to Department Attorney Bruce Ohr
    In Chapter Nine, we describe the interactions Department attorney Bruce Ohr had with Christopher Steele, the FBI, Glenn Simpson (the owner of Fusion GPS), and the State Department during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. At the time of these interactions, which took place from about July 2016 to May 2017, Ohr was an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Office of t he Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) and the Director of the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). Ohr’s Interactions with Steele, the FBI, Simpson, and the State Department Beginning in July 2016, at about t he same time that Steele was engaging with the FBI on his election reporting, Steele contacted Ohr, who he had known since at least 2007, to discuss information from Steele’s election reports. At Steele’s suggestion, Ohr also met in August 2016 with Simpson to discuss Steele’s reports. At the time, Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked at Fusion GPS as an independent contractor. Ohr also met with Simpson in December 2016, at which time Simpson gave Ohr a thumb drive containing numerous Steele election reports that Ohr thereafter provided to the FBI.
    On October 18, 2016, after speaking with Steele that morning, Ohr met with [Andrew] McCabe to share Steele’s and Simpson’s information with him. Thereafter, Ohr met with members of the Crossfire Hurricane team 13 times between November 21, 2016, and May 15, 2017, concerning his contacts with Steele and Simpson. All 13 meetings occurred after the FBI had closed Steele as a CHS and, except for the November 21 meeting, each meeting was initiated at Ohr’s request. Ohr told us that he did not recall the FBI asking him to take any action regarding Steele or Simpson, but Ohr also stated that “the general instruction was to let [the FBI] know … when I got information from Steele.” The Crossfire Hurricane team memorialized each of the meetings with Ohr as an “interview” using an FBI FD302 form. Separately, in November 2016, Ohr met with senior State Department officials regarding Steele’s election reporting.
    Department leadership, including Ohr’s supervisors in ODAG and the ODAG officials who reviewed and approved the Carter Page FISA applications, were unaware of Ohr’s meetings with FBI officials, Steele, Simpson, and the State Department until after Congress requested information from the Department regarding Ohr’s activities in late November 2017. We did not identify a specific Department policy prohibiting Ohr from meeting with Steele, Simpson, or the State Department and providing the information he learned from those meetings to the FBI. However, Ohr was clearly cognizant of his responsibility to inform his supervisors of these interactions, and acknowledged to the OIG that the possibility that he would have been told by his supervisors to stop having such contact may have factored into his decision not to tell them about it. We concluded that Ohr committed consequential errors in judgment by ( 1) failing to advise his direct supervisors or the DAG that he was communicating with Steele and Simpson and then requesting meetings with the FBI’s Deputy Director and Crossfire Hurricane team on matters that were outside of his areas of responsibility, and (2) making himself a witness in the investigation by meeting with Steele and providing Steele’s information to the FBI. As we describe in Chapter Eight, the late discovery of Ohr’s meetings with the FBI prompted NSD to notify the FISC in July 2018, over a year after the final FISA renewal order was issued, of information that Ohr had provided to the FBI but that the FBI had failed to inform NSD and 01 about (and therefore was not included in the FISA applications), including that Steele was ” desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President.”
    FBI Compliance with Policies:
    The FBI’s CHS (Confidential Human Source) Policy Guide (CHSPG) provides guidance to agents concerning contacts with CHSs after they have been closed for cause, as was the case with Steele as of November 2016. According to the CHSPG, a handling agent must not initiate contact with or respond to contacts from a former CHS who has been closed for cause absent exceptional circumstances that are approved by an SSA. The CHSPG also requires reopening of the CHS if the relationship between the FBI and a closed CHS is expected to continue beyond the initial contact or debriefing. Reopening requires high levels of supervisory approval, including a finding that the benefits of reopening the CHS outweigh the risks. We found that, while the Crossfire Hurricane team did not initiate direct contact with Steele after his closure, it responded to numerous contacts made by Steele through Ohr. Ohr himself was not a direct witness in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation; rather, his purpose in communicating with the FBI was to pass along information from Steele. While the FBI’s CHS policy does not explicitly address indirect contact between an FBI agent and a closed CHS, we concluded that the repeated contacts with Steele should have triggered the CHS policy requiring that such contacts occur only after an SSA determines that exceptional circumstances exist. While an SSA was present for the meetings with Ohr, we found no evidence that the SSAs made considered judgments that exceptional circumstances existed for the repeated contacts. We also found that, given that there were 13 different meetings with Ohr over a period of months, the use of Ohr as a conduit between the FBI and Steele created a relationship by proxy that should have triggered, pursuant to FBI policy, a supervisory decision about whether to reopen Steele as a CHS or discontinue accepting information indirectly from him through Ohr.
    Ethics Issues Raised by Nellie Ohr’s Former Employment with Fusion GPS:
    Fusion GPS employed Nellie Ohr as an independent contractor from October 2015 to September 2016. On his annual financial disclosure forms covering calendar years 2015 and 2016, Ohr listed Nellie Ohr as an “independent contractor” and reported her income from that work on the form. We determined that financial disclosure rules, 5 C.F.R. Part 2634, did not require Ohr to list on the form the specific organizations, such as Fusion GPS, that paid Nellie Ohr as an independent contractor during the reporting period. In addition, for reasons we explain in Chapter Eleven, we concluded that the federal ethics rules did not require Ohr to obtain Department ethics counsel approval before engaging with the FBI in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane matter because of Nellie Ohr’s prior work for Fusion GPS. However, we found that, given the factual circumstances that existed, and the appearance that they created, Ohr displayed a lapse in judgment by not availing himself of the process described in the ethics rules to consult with the Department ethics official about his involvement in the investigation.
    Meetings Involving Ohr, CRM officials, and the FBI Regarding the MLARS Investigation:
    Ohr’s supervisors in ODAG also were unaware that Ohr, shortly after the U.S. elections in November 2016, and again in early 2017, participated in discussions about a money laundering investigation of Manafort that was then being led by prosecutors from the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS), which is located in the Criminal Division (CRM) at t he Department’s headquarters. As described in more detail in Chapter Nine, in November 2016, Ohr told CRM Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz and Counsel to t he CRM Assistant Attorney General Zainab Ahmad about information he was getting from Steele and Simpson about Manafort. Between November 16, 2016 and December 15, 2016, Ohr participated in several meetings that were attended, at various times, by some or all of the following individuals: Swartz, Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann (then Section Chief of CRM’s Fraud Section), Strzok, and Lisa Page. The meetings involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann focused on t heir shared concern that MLARS was not moving quickly enough on the Manafort criminal investigation and whether there were steps they could take to move the investigation forward. The meetings with [Peter] Strzok and Lisa Page focused primarily on whether the FBI could assess the case’s relevance, if any, to the FBI ‘s Russian interference investigation. MLARS was not represented at any of these meetings or told about them, and none of attendees had supervisory responsibility over the MLARS investigation.
    There were no meetings about the Manafort case involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann from December 16, 20 16 to January 30, 2017. On January 31, 2017, one day after Yates was removed as DAG, Ahmad, by t hen an Acting CRM Deputy Assistant Attorney General, after consulting with Swartz and Weissmann, sent an email to Lisa Page, copying Weissmann, Swartz, and Ohr, requesting a meeting the next day to discuss “a few Criminal Division related developments.” The next day, February 1, Swartz, Ohr, Ahmad, and Weissmann met with Strzok, Lisa Page, and an FBI Acting Section Chief. None of the attendees at the meeting could explain to us what the “Criminal Division related developments” were, and we did not find any. Meeting notes reflect, among other things, that the group discussed the Manafort criminal investigation and efforts that the Department could undertake to investigate attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 elections. MLARS was not represented at, or told about, the meeting. We are not aware of information indicating that any of the discussions involving Ohr, Swartz, Weissmann, Ahmad, Strzok, and Lisa Page resulted in any actions taken or not taken in the MLARS investigation, and ultimately the investigation remained with MLARS until it was transferred to the Office of the Special Counsel in May 2017. We also did not identify any Department policies prohibiting internal discussions about a pending investigation among officials not assigned to the matter, or between those officials and senior officials from the FBI. However, as described in Chapter Nine, we were told that there was a decision not to inform the leadership of CRM, both before and after the change in presidential administrations, of these discussions in order to insulate the MLARS investigation from becoming “politicized.” We concluded that this decision, made in the absence of concerns of potential wrongdoing or misconduct, and for the purpose of avoiding the appearance that an investigation is “politicized,” fundamental ly misconstrued who is ultimately responsible and accountable for the Department’s work. We agree with the concerns expressed to us by then DAG Yates and then CRM Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell. Department leaders cannot fulfill their management responsibilities, and be held accountable for the Department’s actions, if subordinates intentionally withhold information from them in such circumstances.
    The Use of Confidential Sources (Other Than Steele) and Undercover Employees:
    As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 20 16 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both during and after the time they were affiliated with t he Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation. All of these CHS interactions were consensually monitored and recorded by the FBI. As noted above, under Department and FBI policy, the use of a CHS to conduct consensual monitoring is a matter of investigative judgment that, absent certain circumstances, can be authorized by a first-line supervisor (a supervisory special agent). We determined that the CHS operations conducted during Crossfire Hurricane received the necessary FBI approvals, and that AD Priestap knew about, and approved of, all of the Crossfire Hurricane CHS operations, even in circumstances where a first-level supervisory special agent could have approved the operations. We found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UCEs to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although the Crossfire Hurricane team’s use of CHSs and UCEs complied with applicable policies, we are concerned that, under these policies, it was sufficient for a first-level FBI supervisor to authorize the domestic CHS operations that were undertaken in Crossfire Hurricane, and that there was no applicable Department or FBI policy requiring the FBI to notify Department officials of the investigative team’s decision to task CHSs to consensually monitor conversations with members of a presidential campaign. We found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any Department officials before conducting these CHS operations. We believe that current Department and FBI policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity, and that they should require, at minimum, Department consultation. As noted above, we include a recommendation in this report to address this issue. Consistent with current Department and FBI policy, we learned that decisions about the use of CHSs and UCEs were made by the case agents and the supervisory special agents assigned to Crossfire Hurricane. These agents told the OIG that they focused the CHS operations on the FFG information and the four investigative subjects, and that they viewed CHS operations as one of the best methods available to quickly obtain information about the predicating allegations, while preventing information about the nature and existence of the investigation from becoming public, and potentially impacting the presidential election. During the meeting between a CHS and the high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation, the CHS asked about the role of three Crossfire Hurricane subjects-Carter Page, Papadopoulos, and Manafort-in the Trump campaign. The CHS also asked about allegations in public reports concerning Russian interference in the 2016 elections, the campaign’s response to ideas featured in Carter Page’s Moscow speech, and the possibility of an “October Surprise.” In response, the campaign official made no comments of not e about those topics. The CHS and the high-level campaign official also discussed [Redacted]. We found that the Crossfire Hurricane team made no use of any information collected from t he high-level Trump campaign official, because the t eam determined that none of the information gathered was “germane” to the al legations under investigation. However, we were concerned that the Crossfire Hurricane team did not recall having in place a plan, prior to the operation involving the high-level campaign official, to address the possible collection of politically sensitive information.
    As discussed in Chapter Ten, through the use of CHSs, the investigative team obtained statements from Carter Page and Papadopoulos that raised questions about the validity of allegations under investigation. For example, when questioned in August 2016 about other individuals who were subjects in the investigation, Carter Page told a CHS that he had “literally never met” or “said one word to” Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Carter Page’s emails. As another example, Papadopoulos denied to a CHS that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails. Papadopoulos stated that the “campaign, of course, [does not] advocate for this type of activity because at the end of the day it’s … illegal” and that “our campaign is not…engag[ing] or reaching out to Wikileaks or to the whoever it is to tell them please work with us, collaborate because we don’t, no one does that….” Papadopoulos also said that “as far as I understand … no one’s collaborating, there’s been no collusion and it’s going to remain that way.” In another interaction, Papadopoulos told a CHS that he knew “for a fact” that no one from the Trump campaign had anything to do with releasing emails from the DNC, as a result of Papadopoulos’s involvement in t he Trump campaign. Despite the relevance of this materia l, as described in Chapters Five and Seven, none of Papadopoulos’s statements were provided by the Crossfire Hurricane team to the OI Attorney and Carter Page’s statements were not provided to the OI attorney until June 2017, approximately ten months a~er the initial Carter Page FISA application was granted by the FISC. Through our review, we also determined that there were other CHSs tasked by t he FBI to attempt to contact Papadopoulos, but that those attempted contacts did not lead to any operational activity. We also identified several individuals who had either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign, and were also FBI CHSs, but who were not tasked as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. One such CHS did provide the Crossfire Hurricane team with general information about Crossfire Hurricane subjects Carter Page and Manafort, but we found that this CHS had no further involvement in the investigation.
    We identified another CHS that the Crossfire Hurricane team first learned about in 2017, after the CHS voluntarily provided his/her handling agent with an [REDACTED] -and the handling agent forwarded the material, through his supervisor and FBI Head quarters to the Crossfire Hurricane team. [REDACTED] The handling agent told us that, when he subsequently informed the Crossfire Hurricane team that the CHS had access to [REDACTED], a Crossfire Hurricane team intelligence analyst asked the handling agent to collect [REDACTED] from the CHS, which the handling agent did. We found that the Crossfire Hurricane team determined that there was not “anything significant” in this [REDACTED] collection, and did not seek to task the CHS. While we found that no action was taken by the Crossfire Hurricane team in response to receiving [REDACTED] we nevertheless were concerned to learn that the handling agent for the CHS placed [REDACTRED] into the FBI’s files, and we promptly notified the FBI upon learning that they were still being maintained in the FBI’s files. We further concluded that, because the CHS’s handling agent did not understand the CHS’s political involvement, no assessment was performed by the source’s handling agent or his supervisors (none of whom were members of the Crossfire Hurricane team) to determine whether the CHS required re-designation as a “sensitive source” or should have been closed during the pendency of the campaign.
    While we concluded that the investigative activities undertaken by the Crossfire Hurricane team involving CHSs and UCEs complied with applicable Department and FBI policies, we believe that in certain circumstances Department and FBI policies do not provide sufficient oversight and accountability for investigative activities that have the potential to gather sensitive information involving protected First Amendment activity, and therefore include recommendations to address these issues. Finally, as we also describe in Chapter Ten, we learned during the course of our review that in August 2016, the supervisor of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, SSA 1, participated on behalf of the FBI in a strategic intelligence briefing given by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to candidate Trump and his national security advisors, including Michael Flynn, and in a separate strategic intelligence briefing given to candidate Clinton and her national security advisors. The stated purpose of the FBI portion of the briefing was to provide the recipients “a baseline on the presence and threat posed by foreign intelligence services to the National Security of the U.S.” However, we found that SSA 1 was selected to provide the FBI briefings, in part, because Flynn, who was a subject in the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation, would be attending the Trump campaign briefing. Following his participation in the briefing of candidate Trump, Flynn, and another Trump advisor, SSA 1 drafted an EC documenting his participation in the briefing, and added the EC to the Crossfire Hurricane investigative file. We were told that the decision to select SSA 1 to participate in the ODNI briefing was reached by consensus among a group of senior FBI officials, including McCabe and Baker. We noted that no one at the Department or ODNI was informed that the FBI was using the ODNI briefing of a presidential candidate for investigative purposes, and found no applicable FBI or Department policies addressing this issue. We concluded that the FBI’s use of this briefing for investigative reasons could potentially interfere with the expectation of trust and good faith among participants in strategic intelligence briefings, thereby frustrating their purpose. We therefore include a recommendation to address this issue.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 1, 2020 4:07 PM
Comment #452161

Have to fess up. I mispoked in a lower thread in stating that some 3k of fake ID’s coming from China were recently confiscated.

Here are some excerpts from an article in “The Epoch Times”

“”The six intercepted shipments, heading to different individuals in the New York area, contained 2,909 counterfeit driver’s licenses and 3,123 blank card stocks used to make fake licenses, according to a Nov. 25 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) press release.””

“”The IDs were for various states, including Florida, Michigan, Illinois. Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and a few other coastal states.””

“”CBP authorities in Louisville also notified their Merphis office of shipments destined for that area, which resulted in an additional 527 fake identification cards being seized.””

“”The report also identified China as the main source of counterfeit and pirated goods, accounting for more than 80 percent of the global fake products seizures in 2016. It also found that China and Hong Kong accounted for $322 billion of counterfeit or pirated product exports worldwide, making up around 63.4 percent of the global total.”

Thank you Bush, Clinton and Obama. But, hey, you got yours, good on ye.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 1, 2020 7:35 PM
Comment #452162

d.a.n. it seems you have out done yourself, set a new record for the longest post on WB, ever, IMO.

But, sorely needed. Nobody but you can put something like that together and get it posted in a super expeditious manner. Thank you for that.

Maybe a pro statement or two but 99.9% negative re the investigators and personnel involved.

The report certainly gives Barr and Durham a road map to follow re the wider coup investigation.

I’ll end right here in thanking GOD for our President, Donald J. Trump.

What a massive clean-up job this man has ahead of him…

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 1, 2020 7:48 PM
Comment #452177

Yeah Roy, the deep-state may be deeper than many have imagined.
According to this video, someone (perhaps George Kent, who was a key Adam Schiff witness?) may be blocking visas for Ukrainian diplomats?
Why?
You may be right about all of this being more than merely hating Trump.
Aside from Hunter Biden having a board-seat on Burisma, and Joe Biden threatening to withhold $1.5 Billion in aid from the Ukraine unless Viktor Shokin was fired (who was investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma), it appears like Democrats and some other person(s) in the state department are trying to hide something (which may be massive money laundering to the tune of $7 Billion stolen from Ukraine).
Large sums of money were being routed to Franklin Templeton, and Adam Schiff has a Franklin Templeton account.
There may not yet be 100% proof of crime(s) yet, but it all looks awfully suspicious (especially for the Bidens).

Supposedly, an investment firm (Rosemont Capital) linked to Hunter Biden received over $130 million in federal bailout loans while his father Joe Biden was vice president and routed profits through a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, according to federal banking and corporate records reviewed by the Washington Examiner.
Financial experts said the offshore corporate structure could have been used to shield earnings from U.S. taxes.
Rosemont Capital, an investment firm at the center of Hunter Biden’s much-scrutinized financial network, was one of the companies approved to participate in the 2009 federal loan program known as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF).

On 14-NO-2019, the Ukrainian government indicted the owner of Barisma because they claim $7.5 billion was laundered through Blackrock and Franklin Templeton.
Also, Franklin Templeton was a major contributor to the Obama campaign. Adam Schiff has a Franklin Templeton account and (supposedly) received laundered money, along with many in the DNC.
Blackrock and Franklin Templeton both are on the list of investments making payments to Adam Schiff.
Hunter Biden is named in the indictment by the Ukrainian government

Congress cannot hide the Ukrainian courts and cannot “protect” the Democrats if indictments by name are handed down. While none of this is 100% verified yet, it is yet another thing that looks very suspicious. Especially when Hunter Biden said he was broke, and then bought a $2.5 Million house in LA in DEC-2019.

Is this all beginning to make sense now?
Could it be that the Democrats and deep-staters have lost control of their narrative designed to distract from the corruption and political shenanigans?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 2, 2020 10:20 AM
Comment #452184

Many thanks to everyone who participated in debates on WatchBlog in 2019. I nearly always learn something of value in every post.

I look forward to the events of 2020 and expect many to participate on WB. With God’s help, we may just survive the assault on our Democratic Republic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 2, 2020 3:56 PM
Comment #452189

Many thanks to you also, Royal Flush, for hanging in here at WatchBlog.

Remember after Trump got elected many detractors of his were ridiculing him for not getting anything done. This was about 2 months into his presidency. People were looking down their noses talking crap about Trump. Well, I wonder how they feel now that this stuff is starting to bubble up? I knew Trump had his work cut out for him and he would do it eventually. I’m just amazed at the depth of the problem at the federal level!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 2, 2020 7:23 PM
Comment #452191

Thanks to all of you!
Weary, I’m surprised too about how deep the deep-state is.
The type of corruption we’ve seen is bad for the nation, because it serves to deteriorate the peoples’ confidence in our justice systems.
Royal, I too often find it educational.
Yes, there’s a long way to go to drain the swamp.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 2, 2020 9:26 PM
Comment #452226

It took Donald Trump being elected president to bring serious attention to the “swamp creatures” inhabiting our national government; and the faux news reporters who do not deserve the protection our constitution affords the press.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 3, 2020 5:21 PM
Comment #452250

They have not yet realized CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. It’s just the “freedom of the press” that is protected, not their corporations. They’re slowly being replaced with people like Millennial Millie, Liberty Hangout, Ben Shapiro, and BlazeTV.

What would really make a difference, in my opinion, would be to have most of the late night comedy shows replaced with some conservative humor. I think it’s much funnier than the political sniping that goes on now. Conservative humor is based in truth, not personal destruction.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 4, 2020 9:40 AM
Comment #452285

I don’t watch Saturday Night Live, and haven’t for many years. There was a time (a long time ago) when SNL was more balanced, and made fun of everyone. Today, most of their vitriol is directed at Trump and non-Democrats. But, why should we expect anything different from people that support a party that has perpetrated these deeds over the last 155+ years (especially those people that aren’t ignorant of that long history)?

By the way, I haven’t noticed anyone denying that Democrats perpetrated those deeds. However, I do recall a truly nutty lie by phx8 and j2t2, and other lefty loonies that the Demorats and Republicans traded places in the 1960s.
Unfortunately, even IF that was true, it would not explain the Democrats’ recent deeds today, and for the past few decades.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 5, 2020 2:19 PM
Post a comment