DOJ MAKES A CASE AGAINST IT’S OWN CORRUPTION by refusing to prosecute Hunter Biden as an unregistered foreign agent, and willfully allowing the most serious tax evasion charges implicating Joe Biden to remain uncharged beyond the statute of limitations. Jonathan Turley presents the facts.
Thursday, September 12, 2024
KAMALA HARRIS POLICIES NOT ONLY DESCRIBE POLITICAL POSITIONS, THEY DIRECTLY CHALLENGE THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
In an article by Peter Demos – Special for Higher Ground, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 Peter points out the following confrontations to the Christian faith inherent to the Democratic positions promoted by Kamala Harris:
1. Religious discrimination - A month after Trump's assassination attempt, key questions remain unanswered. In 2018, Ms. Harris suggested that membership in a Catholic organization should disqualify a judicial candidate.. This blatant attack on religious freedom was so worrying that the Senate passed a resolution rebuking its line of question. Such actions reflect a worldview that not only despises Christian values, but is hostile to them.
2. Redefining Marriage - Mrs. Harris has been a staunch advocate for redefining marriage, pushing for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Civil Rights Act. Marriage, as defined by God, is a sacred union between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24). Redefining this institution according to human desires is to reject God's design..
3. Reproductive "freedom" and border policies - Ms. Harris defends what she calls "reproductive rights" as the cornerstone of her campaign, which means advocating for unrestricted access to abortion, up until the moment of birth. However, acting as "the Czar of the Border," she has allowed thousands of unaccompanied minors to enter the country, exposing them to the horrors of sex trafficking. The contradiction is clear: while he claims to support women's rights, his policies have facilitated the exploitation of vulnerable children. The right to life and protection from harm are fundamental Christian principles, and these are being trampled under the guise of reproductive freedom.
4. Promoting immorality: Mrs. Harris’ 2018 tweet attacking abstinence education further highlights her departure from Christian values, which emphasize the purity and holiness of marriage. Her record of supporting comprehensive sex education and reproductive rights, including access to contraception and abortion, raises serious concerns about her views on promiscuity.
5. Gender Affirming Payment - Ms Harris’ support for gender affirming assistance, including procedures that result in sterilization of minors, is perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of her platform. Children, who lack the ability to make informed decisions, are being encouraged to undergo irreversible procedures. This is not freedom; it is the destruction of God-given bodies and identities.
6. Erosion of Religious Freedom - Ms Harris has also sought to weaken the Restoring Religious Freedom Act, a measure that would prevent businesses and individuals from practicing their faith without fear of government retaliation. This is an attack on the very foundations of our religious freedom, which allows Christians to live out their faith in the public square.
Kamala Harris’ progressive policies are not just political positions; they are a direct challenge to Christian values. As Christians, we must discern, recognizing that not everyone who claims to be of the faith truly lives according to it. The Harris record speaks for itself, and it is a record that should concern all believers.
In this crucial election, we must remember that our allegiance comes first to Christ and His teachings. As we cast our votes, let's do so with a clear understanding of where the candidates stand on these critical biblical concerns, not only in their words, but also in their actions.
SUPREME COURT BLOCKS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S CHANGES TO (DESTRUCTION OF) TITLE IX
Biden administration changes to Title IX, which would have forced schools receiving public funding to allow transgender males into girl’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports was blocked by the Supreme Court. Another amazing victory for women and common sense.
I CANNOT OVEREMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CALL AND THE BETRAYAL OF OUR CONSTITUTION BY THE 4 MEMBER SCOTUS MINORITY. That’s how close we came to the destruction of women’s sports and the forced exclusion of conservative/religious girls from public school sports.
Monday, December 30, 2019
FISA TREATS - No. 2: FBI SPIED ON TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN FROM BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED STRAIGHT THROUGH INTO HIS PRESIDENCY.
Courtesy of Inspector General (IG), Michael Horowitz...
So I decided to break down the Deep State fiasco outlined in the IG’s FISA Scandal report into bite sized pieces that I am calling “FISA Treats”. Here’s the second one (all quotes from actual report):
(2) “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team TASKED SEVERAL CHSS AND UNDERCOVER EMPLOYEES (UCEs) during the 2016 presidential campaign, which RESULTED IN INTERACTIONS WITH Carter Page, Papadopoulos, and A HIGH-LEVEL TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL WHO WAS NOT A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION… We also learned that in August 2016, A SUPERVISOR OF THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION participated on behalf of the FBI in a strategic intelligence briefing given by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to candidate Trump and his national security advisors, including investigative subject Flynn, and also participated in a separate strategic intelligence briefing given to candidate Clinton and her national security advisors. THE FBI VIEWED THE BRIEFING OF CANDIDATE TRUMP AND HIS ADVISORS AS A POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT INFORMATION POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE and Flynn investigations. THE SUPERVISOR MEMORIALIZED THE RESULTS OF THE BRIEFING in an official FBI document, INCLUDING INSTANCES WHERE HE WAS ENGAGED BY TRUMP and Flynn, as well as anything he considered related to the FBI or pertinent to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The supervisor did not memorialize the results of the briefing of candidate Clinton and her advisors… The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as an umbrella counterintelligence investigation, WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ANY SPECIFIC SUBJECTS OR TARGETS.”
So prior to the issuance of Horowitz’ condemning FISA Scandal Report, and even after it came out, we’ve been consistently hearing denials of any “spying” going on with regard to President Trump and his campaign, an ALLEGED FACT PUSHED ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC by the media. Horowitz’ investigation settled any question in this regard. THERE DEFINITELY WAS SPYING ON TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN before and after he got into office.
Additionally, by opening the investigation without identifying any specific subjects or targets, it impliedly included President Trump himself as a target of the investigation, which of course exposes James Comey for the liar that he is, having expressly told the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017 the following regarding a conversation that he had with President Trump (his boss under Article 2), “I thought it was fair to say [to the President of the United States] what was literally true. There was not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump, and I decided in the moment to say it, given the nature of our conversation.” Notice his reference to the President as “Mr. Trump”. No one was given a pass, except for Hillary of course, even though it was known that the Steele dossier which formed the basis of the initial investigation was paid for by individuals connected with the Hillary campaign and the DNC. Here’s a direct quote from the IG Report, “We asked Steele when he learned who had retained Fusion GPS to obtain information concerning Trump and the Trump campaign. He told us he could not recall when he first learned that it was the LAW FIRM PERKINS COIE and the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (DNC)…” The Report ESTABLISHES WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that the DNC hired a foreign national to spy on President Trump and the Trump campaign. In terms of the veracity of the report which needed to be “SCRUPULOUSLY ACCURATE” in order to be submitted to the FISA Court as support for what would be essentially an intrusive spying warrant, we read the following from the IG Report, “Steele told us that the reports he generated were not designed to be "finished products" and instead were "to be briefed off of orally versus consumed as a written product." He said that the reports were "mostly single source reporting" and were uncorroborated intelligence "up to a point"…” The DNC and Hillary’s campaign orchestrated the mother of all foreign government collusion scenarios.
FISA TREATS - No. 1: SOME OF THE SAME FBI OFFICIALS FROM HILLARY EMAIL SCANDAL OVERSAW TRUMP CAMPAIGN IMPROPER FISA SPYING
Courtesy of Inspector General (IG), Michael Horowitz...
So I decided to break down the Deep State fiasco outlined in the IG’s FISA Scandal report into bite sized pieces that I am calling “FISA Treats”. Here’s the first one (all quotes from actual report):
(1) “Some of THE SAME FBI officials, supervisors, and attorneys responsible for the Midyear investigation (Hillary Clinton email scandal) were assigned to the newly opened Crossfire Hurricane investigation (Investigation into Trump Campaign/Russia collusion)… [and] there was ALMOST [interesting word to use, no?] no overlap between the FBI agents and analysts assigned to the Midyear and Crossfire Hurricane investigations”
The Midyear investigation was one of the most ridiculously conducted FBI investigations in U.S. history. You might say, “Well, Hillary was totally exonerated except for being guilty of innocent stupidity!”, which would technically be true. You see, in that investigation immunity was handed out like candy and used as the means of getting Hillary off the hook while allowing the destruction of any future forensic evidence of wrongdoing. This is how that went down: Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks basically took [or was made to take] the fall after having been given immunity by the FBI, admitting to, “having ACTED ON HIS OWN [pretty interesting] and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request…” (based on formal FBI reports) and then going on to mysteriously delete over 30,000 subpoenaed emails from Hillary's now infamous "private unsecured server.” The confession went something like, “Yeah, I did it but don’t know why I did.” So the FBI just accepts that explanation and tells America, “Run along now, nothing to look at here except for Hillary’s innocent sloppiness in setting up a private server to handle her official communications potentially hiding the details behind the millions of dollars donated to the Clinton foundation directly by foreign governments out of the goodness of their hearts”.
The fun doesn’t stop there folks. Bryan Pagliano, the former campaign staff member for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign and ex-State Department employee who actually set up the server in Hilary’s upstate New York residence, was also granted total immunity by the FBI in exchange for no apparent beneficial testimony.
Need I also mention the fact that Hillary’s lawyers, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were also granted immunity and were inexplicably subsequently allowed to destroy their laptops after the FBI agents conducting that investigation looked at them, basically destroying any hope of collecting future forensic evidence into any FBI malfeasance associated with the way the “Midyear” investigation was conducted by the FBI. When questioned, Hillary was never placed under oath during Midyear, and no transcript was ever kept of her answers to FBI questions, disallowing any future prosecution for perjury such as was used to entrap Flynn. Other FBI agents asked to comment on how this investigation was conducted have consistently asserted that investigations ARE NEVER done this way by the FBI. NEVER.
Now we learn that these are mostly the same FBI supervisors and attorneys who, thanks to the FISA IG report, we now know inappropriately (and possibly illegally) pursued and obtained FISA renewals to spy on President Trump’s campaign personnel by both omitting critical information that they legally had to provide, while fabricating other information altogether which they went on to include in their FISA renewal applications. The American public is then expected to believe that all of these actions and seemingly suspicious decisions are totally coincidental.
During a recent Senate hearing, Mr. Horowitz said that, "it is unknown as to precisely why" the FBI lawyer changed the content of the email [the fabrication referenced above]”, and then went on to say that these surveillance problems were "not routine" and that the motivations behind them are "unclear." The IG has since stated that the mistakes demonstrated either gross negligence or some other as of yet unknown causation, a matter to be investigated “by others” in the Justice Department. Now there’s a FISA IG report treat for you.
During a recent Senate hearing, Mr. Horowitz said that, "it is unknown as to precisely why" the FBI lawyer changed the content of the email [the fabrication referenced above]”, and then went on to say that these surveillance problems were "not routine" and that the motivations behind them are "unclear." The IG has since stated that the mistakes demonstrated either gross negligence or some other as of yet unknown causation, a matter to be investigated “by others” in the Justice Department. Now there’s a FISA IG report treat for you.
Friday, December 20, 2019
REBUTTAL OF TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, editorial piece by Mark Galli, editor in-chief of Christianity Today, Dec. 19, 2019
By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., J.D., Esq.
When litigating cases, often one side will make a preliminary motion for summary judgment. They do so when they believe that the Court, looking at all the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the opposing party, would still have to conclude that there are (1) no genuine issues regarding the material facts in the case, and (2) that they would have to rule in favor of the movant and against the opposing party on the basis of the facts presented as a matter of law. Mark Galli’s statement in Christianity Today is essentially an unfounded “public” motion for summary judgment against the current President of the United States.
In order to give any credence to his opinion regarding the removal of the President from office, the reader would have to first accept the premise presented by Mr. Galli that, and I quote, “But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.” As a licensed attorney in NY and NJ, practicing in Federal, State and Immigration Court, along with most attorneys who watched the wholly partisan Presidential Impeachment proceeding last week, I would conclude that no facts were presented during the entire proceeding to substantiate Mr. Galli’s claim of no ambiguity. Quite the contrary, in fact. While the President clearly was unwise in actually naming a political opponent when asking a foreign government to help deal with potential corruption that may have influenced the 2016 election process in the U.S. which hurt the Country (obviously not his candidacy since he won), the request was nonetheless Constitutionally well within the purview of the Executive Branch of our government. And this is the crux of the problem with Mr. Galli’s extremely dangerous assertions and recommendations made in this regrettable article. No facts were established by any witness during the Impeachment Proceeding that the President factually sought to “coerce” or otherwise “harass” a foreign leader to discredit Biden for personal, partisan political gain. This is either Mark’s mistaken interpretation of the conversation itself, or an imprudent reiteration of popular media talking points. Quoting from the White House’s official transcript of the conversation, here’s what the President actually asked for in the now “infamous” conversation [in relevant part]:
President Trump: “I would like you to do US A FAVOR though, because OUR COUNTRY has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine… I would like to have the Attorney General [referring to Bill Barr] call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it… Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible… The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION so if you can look into it...”1
As should be obvious to the objective reader, at no time does Trump here actually make what can honestly be interpreted as a demand of President Zelenskyy. Not only so, but he couches all of the requests that he makes with three salient phrases, “Would like”, “Whatever you can do”, and “if that’s possible”. For Mark to conclude that the president’s requests modified by these phrases still constitute coercion [Def: to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition] is at best a mistake.
Notwithstanding the personal opinions voiced by the one fact witness at the partisan Impeachment proceeding, Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, managed to testify that the one request expressly made to him by President Trump when asked what the President actually wanted was, and I again quote, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelenskiyy, President Zelenskiyy to do the right thing”.2 I and other attorneys would agree with Mr. Mark Galli that “the facts in this instance are unambiguous,” unfortunately they are unambiguous in their lack of support for his assertions and subsequent recommendation in this article.
Beyond this clarification, Mark Galli is sadly misunderstanding what the role of voting is to a citizen-believer. What it is not is an act of worship. Voting for anyone does not, should not, and has never served to convey the voter’s opinion regarding the moral virtue of the person voted for. If this were true, Christians shouldn’t vote in secular elections at all – ever.3 In truth, men of God have supported ungodly leaders throughout history, helping them to make better decisions and rule over God’s people and the general citizenry at large. Daniel, for example, as well Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, all served as prominent political leaders under the ungodly king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. Nehemiah under the pagan king Artaxerxes of Persia.
At present, as unpleasant, crass, quick tempered and immoral personally as President Trump might be, he is the single candidate who has governed to defend our Constitutionally established personal and religious liberties, our courts as a whole, the integrity of our Justice Department, and the sanctity of life. He has done this, notwithstanding what appears to be the largest government agency backed attempted coup against a President in the history of the U.S. Any other candidate running, and the Democrat party candidates as a whole, would likely quickly eviscerate these Constitutional protections and badly hurt the Church in the process. As genuinely distasteful as Trump’s rhetoric and personal morals might be for most of us, taking him out of office at this juncture would irreversibly hurt the cause of Christ in this country.
The bottom line is this: Presidents come and go. Trump will be gone in at most in 5 years. But Supreme Court justices and Federal Court judges remain in place for life, once appointed. Taking Mark’s advice would likely give you more decisions like the recent same-sex decision overturning the will of the people of over 30 states (Obergefell). Proper Godly advice would better have been to support and pray for our President and ask that God correct, strengthen and guide him to be able to lead the people of the United States while being more compassionate to those in need.4
______________________________________________________________________________
1. White House Published PDF of Official Transcript of Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, July 25, 2019, 9:03 to 9:33 a.m. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf]
2. Jeff Mason and Tim Ahmann, Trump, Citing Portion of Sondland’s Testimony, Claims Exoneration, Reuters, Politics, November 20, 2019 [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-exoneration/trump-citing-portion-of-sondlands-testimony-claims-exoneration-idUSKBN1XU2FH]
3. Romans 3:23 (NIV), 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
4. 1 Tim. 2:1-3 (NIV), I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
When litigating cases, often one side will make a preliminary motion for summary judgment. They do so when they believe that the Court, looking at all the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the opposing party, would still have to conclude that there are (1) no genuine issues regarding the material facts in the case, and (2) that they would have to rule in favor of the movant and against the opposing party on the basis of the facts presented as a matter of law. Mark Galli’s statement in Christianity Today is essentially an unfounded “public” motion for summary judgment against the current President of the United States.
In order to give any credence to his opinion regarding the removal of the President from office, the reader would have to first accept the premise presented by Mr. Galli that, and I quote, “But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.” As a licensed attorney in NY and NJ, practicing in Federal, State and Immigration Court, along with most attorneys who watched the wholly partisan Presidential Impeachment proceeding last week, I would conclude that no facts were presented during the entire proceeding to substantiate Mr. Galli’s claim of no ambiguity. Quite the contrary, in fact. While the President clearly was unwise in actually naming a political opponent when asking a foreign government to help deal with potential corruption that may have influenced the 2016 election process in the U.S. which hurt the Country (obviously not his candidacy since he won), the request was nonetheless Constitutionally well within the purview of the Executive Branch of our government. And this is the crux of the problem with Mr. Galli’s extremely dangerous assertions and recommendations made in this regrettable article. No facts were established by any witness during the Impeachment Proceeding that the President factually sought to “coerce” or otherwise “harass” a foreign leader to discredit Biden for personal, partisan political gain. This is either Mark’s mistaken interpretation of the conversation itself, or an imprudent reiteration of popular media talking points. Quoting from the White House’s official transcript of the conversation, here’s what the President actually asked for in the now “infamous” conversation [in relevant part]:
President Trump: “I would like you to do US A FAVOR though, because OUR COUNTRY has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine… I would like to have the Attorney General [referring to Bill Barr] call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it… Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible… The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION so if you can look into it...”1
As should be obvious to the objective reader, at no time does Trump here actually make what can honestly be interpreted as a demand of President Zelenskyy. Not only so, but he couches all of the requests that he makes with three salient phrases, “Would like”, “Whatever you can do”, and “if that’s possible”. For Mark to conclude that the president’s requests modified by these phrases still constitute coercion [Def: to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition] is at best a mistake.
Notwithstanding the personal opinions voiced by the one fact witness at the partisan Impeachment proceeding, Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, managed to testify that the one request expressly made to him by President Trump when asked what the President actually wanted was, and I again quote, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelenskiyy, President Zelenskiyy to do the right thing”.2 I and other attorneys would agree with Mr. Mark Galli that “the facts in this instance are unambiguous,” unfortunately they are unambiguous in their lack of support for his assertions and subsequent recommendation in this article.
Beyond this clarification, Mark Galli is sadly misunderstanding what the role of voting is to a citizen-believer. What it is not is an act of worship. Voting for anyone does not, should not, and has never served to convey the voter’s opinion regarding the moral virtue of the person voted for. If this were true, Christians shouldn’t vote in secular elections at all – ever.3 In truth, men of God have supported ungodly leaders throughout history, helping them to make better decisions and rule over God’s people and the general citizenry at large. Daniel, for example, as well Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, all served as prominent political leaders under the ungodly king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. Nehemiah under the pagan king Artaxerxes of Persia.
At present, as unpleasant, crass, quick tempered and immoral personally as President Trump might be, he is the single candidate who has governed to defend our Constitutionally established personal and religious liberties, our courts as a whole, the integrity of our Justice Department, and the sanctity of life. He has done this, notwithstanding what appears to be the largest government agency backed attempted coup against a President in the history of the U.S. Any other candidate running, and the Democrat party candidates as a whole, would likely quickly eviscerate these Constitutional protections and badly hurt the Church in the process. As genuinely distasteful as Trump’s rhetoric and personal morals might be for most of us, taking him out of office at this juncture would irreversibly hurt the cause of Christ in this country.
The bottom line is this: Presidents come and go. Trump will be gone in at most in 5 years. But Supreme Court justices and Federal Court judges remain in place for life, once appointed. Taking Mark’s advice would likely give you more decisions like the recent same-sex decision overturning the will of the people of over 30 states (Obergefell). Proper Godly advice would better have been to support and pray for our President and ask that God correct, strengthen and guide him to be able to lead the people of the United States while being more compassionate to those in need.4
______________________________________________________________________________
1. White House Published PDF of Official Transcript of Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, July 25, 2019, 9:03 to 9:33 a.m. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf]
2. Jeff Mason and Tim Ahmann, Trump, Citing Portion of Sondland’s Testimony, Claims Exoneration, Reuters, Politics, November 20, 2019 [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-exoneration/trump-citing-portion-of-sondlands-testimony-claims-exoneration-idUSKBN1XU2FH]
3. Romans 3:23 (NIV), 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
4. 1 Tim. 2:1-3 (NIV), I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
Sunday, December 15, 2019
COMEY - MASTER OF DECEPTION
COMEY’S STATEMENTS TODAY JUSTIFYING THE FBI’S EITHER GROSSLY NEGLIGENT OR CRIMINALLY INTENTIONAL ACTIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.
Democrats and corrupt network reporters like Lemon and Cuomo at CNN tell you to read the IG FISA report for yourself which they claim supports their deeply deceptive narrative that the origin of the investigation against the Trump campaign was not politically motivated because they know that most viewers won’t take them up on their suggestion to read 476 pages.
If anyone did, they would quickly discover that the Inspector General simply stated that he could not find “documentary evidence” of political motivation which would have required an FBI agent to either write down somewhere that what he/she was doing was meant to intentionally hurt the Trump campaign, or it would have required that one of them confess to what then would likely have been characterized as criminal behavior. The only reason the opening of the investigation was deemed “legal” was because the rules in place (AG Guidelines & DIOG) allow FBI brass to authorize pretty much anything on the sketchiest of evidence. But even if legal when opened, it quickly became illegal when the FBI was made aware that Page was working for and in contact with the CIA in terms of the “suspect” Russian contacts which allegedly implicated Page’s motivation in the first place, or when they are given hard evidence over and over again that the dossier was (1) paid for by the DNC through the Hilary campaign (the IG report actually establishes documentary evidence of actual collusion between the Hilary campaign and Russians), (2) that most of the statements in the report were not only not “scrupulously accurate”, they were in fact unverifiable, and (3) that an FBI agent, wishing to deceive the FISA court, intentionally DOCTORED an email to represent a material fact to be exactly the opposite of what it actually was. Why would anyone do this unless they INTENDED TO DECEIVE the court by violating an American citizen’s rights? Horowitz refuses to himself conclude that the motivation for the vast number of material “errors and omissions” which were apparently all coincidentally against Trump’s Team was politically motivated. What we can conclude is that the motivation (whatever it was) was at least malicious and done for the purpose of deceiving the FISA court and somehow accidentally hurt the Trump campaign and presidency. Any honest person with a brain, however, would likely conclude political motivation or animus as the most likely explanations for the pattern of behavior observed.
Knowing all of this, Comey’s pathetic attempt at justifying himself and the FBI is just nauseating and shameful. He continues to use the media to push a deceptive narrative which, lacking any reason or basis in fact, somehow mysteriously exonerates the FBI.
Stop getting your news from CNN or MSNBC folks. Based on my legal analysis of the facts of this and the Hilary Clinton email fiasco, these networks are either intentionally deceptive or grossly incompetent in their reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)