Dec 31, 2018 by David Jolly
With the increase in school shootings, many conservatives believe that training and arming teachers and other faculty members is the best line of defense. They believe that having armed teachers provides an immediate response to an active shooter and a greater chance of saving many lives. Anti-gun liberals oppose training and arming teachers. Some say that teachers should just teach and nothing more. My response to that is asking them why teachers, over the years, have drilled their students on what to do in case of a tornado or fire? I recall having teachers not only drill their classes on a variety of safety measures, but also patrol the school grounds during recess and lunch, all in the name of safety and protection of the students. I also recall our teachers leading us in drills of what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. Are those actions any different than having teachers trained to handle another threat to the safety of their students and themselves? Is it any different for a teacher to break up a fight, disarm a kid with a knife, lead their students to safety in the case of a tornado, or nuclear attack? Another common argument used by anti-gun liberals is that arming teachers presents a huge danger and risk of teachers getting angry and using their concealed carry guns to shoot a student or students. This is the most prevalent argument that most liberals use to fight against the concept of arming teachers, along with the argument that most teachers and law enforcement officials are against the idea of being armed in the classroom. If these are valid arguments, then why haven’t we heard about any instances of teachers shooting their students or very few teachers seeking the training and permitting? Nearly 6 years ago, Ohio passed a law that allows teachers and faculty members, with the approval of local school board, to undergo special training, ability to obtain a concealed permit and to carry their concealed carry weapon in the classroom. In January 2013, I reported: (the post has since been removed) “Knowing the Ohio laws, Buckeye Firearms Foundation has offered free attendance to educators to their Armed Teacher Training Program which will provide educators with the necessary information to help them obtain a conceal carry permit. The cost of the program is $1000 which covers room, board, ammunition and other materials supplied during the course. Since they are a non-profit organization manned by volunteers, it helps keep the cost down. They are covering the costs of the course with monies they have raised and donations from other sponsors.” “Buckeye Firearms Foundation only has room for 24 openings in the program. By January 2, they had over 650 applicants and I just heard on the local news that the number of applicants has climbed to over 900 and more are coming in every day. Nearly 20% of the applicants are from principals and vice principals.” President Donald Trump agrees with the idea of arming teachers, saying: “I think a concealed permit for teachers, and letting people know there are people in the building with a gun, you won’t have, in my opinion you won’t have these shootings. Because these people are cowards. They’re not going to walk into a school if 20 percent of the teachers have guns.” Jay McDonald, President of the Fraternal Order of Police in Ohio commented: “We don’t even give (teachers) the school supplies they need. Now we’re going to pay to arm them and expect them to handle an active-shooter situation where they’re most likely outgunned?” “If we can do that for legislators and judges, we can do that for students.” In February 2018, it was reported: “Since 2013, the nonprofit Buckeye Firearms Foundation has been offering free training specifically for educators, called FASTER, or Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response. The 26-hour class includes handgun training and tactical medical care, such as applying tourniquets and compression bandages.” “The phone is ringing off the hook this week, said Jim Irvine, president of the foundation’s board.” “Over the past five years, more than 1,300 teachers and staff members from 225 districts in 12 states have received FASTER training, including educators in 76 of Ohio’s 88 counties. An additional 400 educators are scheduled for sessions this year.” “For the first time, participation in FASTER had to be limited this year to five staff members per district, Irvine said. Donations to pay for the instruction can’t keep up with demand, he said.” Living just south of Cincinnati, Ohio, the vast majority of our news is Ohio centered and in the past 6 years, I’ve not heard of any teacher getting mad and shooting a student, or of a student stealing the teacher’s gun and using it. Instead, what I do hear is that many teachers are still clamoring to trained, permitted and armed in order to protect their students and themselves. Ohio isn’t the only state to allow teachers to be trained and armed in the classroom. Today, there are hundreds, probably thousands of teachers and faculty, across America, that have been trained and who are armed in the classroom and on campus. The reality is, none of the arguments being used by anti-gun liberals are nothing more than conjecture designed to prevent teachers and faculty members from being able to protect their students and themselves. The facts don’t support the arguments, but hasn’t stopped the liberals from repeating their arguments, much like a parrot repeats what it’s taught without understanding what they are really saying. Lastly, you don’t hear of any school shooting taking place in a school where the teachers have been trained and armed, proving that the best defense is a strong offense! https://barbwire.com/armed-teachers-proving-anti-gun-liberals-wrong/
0 Comments
December 30, 2018
A video in which two parents tearfully tell the story of their tragedy – triplets all becoming autistic within hours of getting a vaccination at the age of nine months – is getting a second life. And it’s at least partly due to the continuing controversy over the alleged link between vaccinations of infants and autism – an issue put in the news just days ago by a newly elected congressman. It was Tennessee U.S. Rep.-elect Mark Green who explained at a town-hall event that he thinks vaccines may cause autism. That would be contrary to what the federal Centers for Disease Control have claimed. Green, a medical doctor, questioned data from the CDC and other institutions that purport to disprove the vaccine link. “Let me say this about autism,” Green said. “I have committed to people in my community, up in Montgomery County, to stand on the CDC’s desk and get the real data on vaccines. Because there is some concern that the rise in autism is the result of the preservatives that are in our vaccines. “As a physician, I can make that argument and I can look at it academically and make the argument against the CDC, if they really want to engage me on it,” Green said. Jane Orient, M.D., former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, says the real problems are a lack of adequate research and the medical industry’s apparent effort to conceal any link between vaccines and autism. “We just really don’t know [the causes] and we’re not doing the research” that is needed, she told WND. While the government, many physician groups, and of course the vaccine makers all categorically reject any link between vaccines and autism, those cases still are appearing and provide compelling evidence of just such a link. “Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature,” two American Academy of Pediatrics doctors claimed last year. “Delaying vaccines only leaves a child at risk of disease.” All of which is why the story of the McDowell family of Michigan is on video on Brighteon.com, getting tens of thousands of views in just the last few days. Natural News reports, “The video shows below, healthy triplets all became autistic within hours of vaccination, once again demonstrating that vaccines cause autism. The parents, the McDowell family in Detroit, Michigan, have spoken out publicly against the horrific medical violence being committed against children every day across America through toxic vaccines.” The parents, David and Brenda McDowell, explain in the video: https://youtu.be/GPHZFQFpZrY On June 25th, 2007, we brought them in for the [vaccine] shot… we went in at 10 am. All three. My daughter still has the mark on her leg from the shot… we did the boys as well. By noon, Claire shut completely off. It was as if she was blind, and deaf, and complete failure to thrive, from super super happy, smiley girl to… she had full blown eye contact, and she shut right down. All she did was stare at the ceiling. At 2:00 we watched Richie shut off. All his mama, dadda, and the furniture walking and everything just shut of. All the giggles, all the smiles, again failure to thrive. They lost all their reflexes… they stopped blinking, yawning, coughing, sneezing, they lost their startle reflex… that was 2:00. The worst was when we saw the final one shut down. We lost Robbie, he looked like he was hit by a bus. He had a stunned look on his face… he acted deaf, he lost his happiness. They were no longer engaged in anything or anyone. They lost their smiles. They never held hands again, never looked at each other again.” Brighteon, in fact, has a “VAXXED” channel for such reports. “Share the link. Spread the word. Vaccines cause autism. The vaccine industry hires internet trolls to attack anyone who dares to tell the truth, even while vaccine pushers are medical monsters who are committing heinous crimes against children on a daily basis,” the Natural News report said. The McDowells explained on their video, which also appeared earlier on YouTube, that they later were informed the vaccine their children got was contaminated and was recalled after it killed a two-year-old. But they said they were told there was no legal recourse for them. They said they only found out about a special government compensation program after their time frame for eligibility had expired. WND reported earlier this year that the CDC admits the problems is growing, with about 1.7 percent of 8-year-olds affected in 11 states. Nationally, the report said, the prevalence has increased 150 percent since 2000, according to the study, which called autism “an urgent public-health concern.” There have been many suggestions for blame, from a vitamin deficiency to Tylenol to a neurotransmitter and antidepressants. But the VAXXED video channel has report after report of those who have seen autism develop shortly or immediately after a vaccination. Orient confirmed that there are “thousands of case reports” that suggest strongly autism follows some vaccinations, or all vaccinations in some people. “These case reports are not followed up,” she said. “Studies that should have been done immediately have not been done. There’s an attempt to cover up studies that are reportedly concerned with” the links. Part of the problem is that vaccinations are so widespread that any effective control group, i.e., those not getting vaccines, nearly has been eliminated. Orient did note there are clusters, such as one in Maricopa County, where “well-educated parents” have decided against the medical industry’s shot agenda. That could be a good start, she said. “There are school records for these children. Are they healthier or less healthy? What are the incidents of neurological impairments, development disorders, more asthmas, less asthmas …?” School used to not need EpiPens, she pointed out, even when peanut butter sandwiches were ubiquitous. EpiPens are emergency treatment for children overcome by allergic reactions. The problem is there for anyone to see, she said, “just thousands of cases of children who were developing normally.” Suddenly, they lose language skills, social skills, even the ability to react to sudden noises, as the McDowells explained. What appears certain, Orient said, is that anything that messes up something, the death of certain cells, the migration of cells, certain ingredients, can have catastrophic impacts on the unborn or toddlers. “We just really don’t know — and we’re not doing the research,” she warned. https://www.wnd.com/2018/12/concerns-over-vaccine-autism-link-persist-despite-official-denials/ December 23, 2018 by sundance Paul Sperry has an interesting report posted at RCP-Investigations outlining numerous interviews with DC politicians and would-be witnesses, if any actual DOJ investigation of the FBI and DOJ misconduct was taking place. What Sperry discovers is the year-long narrative around John Huber and Michael Horowitz is factually false. [SEE HERE] Just like the false framework surrounding the long-forgotten U.S. Attorney John Lausch; the guy who was supposedly hired to facilitate DOJ record production but actually did nothing of the sort; Sperry discovers the framework around U.S. Attorney John Huber was manufactured by career officials inside the DOJ to tamp down problematic demands for a second special counsel. Worse still, and absolutely confirming information from our own contacts within the OIG, Paul Sperry outlines how Michael Horowitz has not interviewed key people who would be part of any authentic FISA abuse inquiry. [READ HERE] Unfortunately, this information is directly in-line with information received by CTH in September of 2018. According to people with knowledge of DOJ-OIG operations, and restrictions upon the IG imposed by chain-of-command authority, Horowitz’s investigation has been limited by Mueller’s team. According to our own independent sourcing, as a direct consequence of the Sessions recusal issues, DAG Rosenstein was in charge of approving all OIG investigative document production and DOJ/FBI scheduling for testimony. Mueller’s team gave Rosenstein a list of restrictive lines of inquiry that would be considered obstructing their own investigation and should thereby be considered ‘out-of-bounds‘ for OIG review; those instructions broadly created limits on what Horowitz could see, and who Horowitz could interview. According to a person directly involved, an internal investigative complaint was filed to the AG; however, due to recusal issues that complaint was forwarded (by Sessions) to FBI chief-legal-counsel Dana Boente. General Counsel Boente, hired by Christopher Wray, ultimately concurred with Mueller and Rosenstein’s decision thereby blocking any internal investigative efforts under the auspices of protecting the integrity of the ongoing Mueller probe. A bureaucratic catch-22. As a result of team Mueller’s moves, multiple people including John Carlin, Mary McCord, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Carter Page and any other inside official with knowledge of the FISA application and downstream issue, is off-limits for DOJ-OIG questioning. This decision was stunningly ironic considering that Dana Boente was the ultimate arbiter inside the internal debate. Remember, Boente was “acting AG” after Sally Yates was fired. See the BS construct? Sometime just after President Trump agreed to back-down from his declassification request (9/21/18), under threat from Rosenstein over obstruction, around early October it was reported to us that INSD (FBI inspection division) was planning to wait-out the Mueller probe and continue the OIG investigation once the Mueller report was filed. However, after the election it became obvious the small group, who make up -and control- Mueller’s team, were going to expand their inquiry; and it was unlikely the probe would end. The result of this bureaucratic mess and tug-of-war is that Horowitz cannot see the information DAG Rosenstein promised President Trump he would review. CTH is told this outcome is entirely by design. DAG Rod Rosenstein knew that Horowitz was being blocked by Mueller at the same time Rosenstein promised President Trump the inspector general would review the FISA issues. The internal complaint passed to Boente had already taken place prior to September 21st when Trump met with Rosenstein. In essence, DAG Rosenstein was lying to Trump about allowing Horowitz to review the information behind the declassification….. well, sort of lying… You see, here’s where Mueller and Rosenstein are Machievellian. IG Horowitz will be allowed to see the material, but only *after* the Mueller team is finished with their probe. So technically Rosenstein wasn’t lying to the President – he just wasn’t being entirely forthcoming with the timing. So long as the Mueller probe exists, the IG is blocked from review. Here’s where it gets interesting…. Remember, as you saw yesterday from Deputy Director David Bowditch, the ODNI (Coats), AG (Whitaker/Barr), DAG (Rosenstein), FBI Director (Wray) and Deputy FBI Director (Bowditch), along with Robert Mueller and/or any leadership member of his team (Weissmann), can block or deny any declassification request. However, they need an excuse to do so; Mueller is that excuse. None of these DOJ/FBI officials have any intention of declassifying anything while the Mueller probe exists. Mueller’s team hold all the power; arguably, by design. But wait, it gets worse… If DOJ Inspector General Horowitz were to write an incomplete report, obviously it would not be of value; but if he did, and it cited his inability to review certain information – and/or conduct certain interviews – that draft report (during the notification to principles phase) still has to pass through DOJ channels who have the ultimately authority to remove any language concerning to their interests, and transfer it into a classified appendix which no-one can legally discuss. Thus, the Inspector General is not an autonomous official; Horowitz doesn’t work without bosses. With Paul Sperry’s reporting today as additional support, CTH continues to outline the true motives and intents of Horowitz: ♦(1) Create an investigation – Just by creating the investigation it is then used as a shield by any corrupt FBI/DOJ official who would find himself/herself under downstream congressional investigation. Former officials being deposed/questioned by IG Horowitz or Congress could then say they are unable to answer those questions due to the ongoing special counsel investigation. In this way Mueller provides cover for ideologically aligned deep state officials. ♦(2) Use the investigation to keep any and all inquiry focused away from the corrupt DOJ and FBI activity that took place in 2015, 2016, 2017. Keep the media narrative looking somewhere, anywhere, other than directly at the epicenter of the issues. In this way, Mueller provides distraction and talking points against the Trump administration. ♦(3) Use the investigation to suck-up, absorb, any damaging investigative material that might surface as a result of tangentially related inquiry. Example: control the exposure of evidence against classified leak participants like SSCI Director of Security, James Wolfe; and/or block IG Horowitz from seeing material related to the FISA abuse scandal and “spygate”. In this way Mueller provides cover for the institutions and the administrative state. In all of these objectives the Mueller special counsel has been stunningly effective. The efforts of Rosenstein, Wray, Bowditch, Boente et al, to cover-up the institutional corruption extends far beyond their blocking activity of the declassification requests; and shows up in the lack of substance behind the Wolfe plea agreement when compared to the devastating evidence within the original indictment. There is a clear pattern. In addition to the disparity of outcome within the Wolfe indictment/plea deal we exhibit: ♦redactions in material evidence provided to congress; ♦refusal to release material to congress; ♦fighting declassification of documents that would be damaging to the previous officials; ♦refusal to discuss events with congress by officials who hide behind the shield of the Mueller investigation; the list is long. Additionally, the Mueller control agenda also extends into the two previous IG reports submitted by DOJ Inspector Michael Horowitz. With Robert Mueller in charge of an ongoing investigation, the two previous IG reports (1. Investigation of McCabe and 2. Clinton email/FBI bias) could not outline anything tangentially connected to the Mueller investigation without first passing through his teams approval and review. That level of Mueller influence kept the most severe elements of investigative sunlight away from public review. These officials defending the administrative state are still in place. We know they are in place because their influential conduct is visible. Three of them are inarguable: (1) By redacting innocuous, albeit highly damaging information, within the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages and emails. Officials within the agencies are hiding information and even eliminating the most damaging material. (2) By controlling what records IG Horowitz has access to; in addition to who he is interviewing. The IG is only as effective as the material he has to review. (3) By shaping the executive summaries of the two previous IG reports to ensure the specific material within the report is diluted as much as possible in the summary and conclusions. In essence, and against the understanding of how these officials manipulated the recusal of AG Jeff Sessions; DAG Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch, FBI Chief Legal Counsel Dana Boente, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the affiliated network of political operatives within the DOJ/FBI; this crew has held free reign to shape everything in the past two years. That is why there has been ZERO progress. Everything past to present, has been a complete con-job by the officials within the DOJ and FBI. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/12/22/report-huber-and-horowitz-investigations-deep-state-cons-constructed-by-doj/ VIDEO Former Senate Intelligence Committee Staffer Sentenced For Lying To The FBI To Only TWO MONTHS12/21/2018 Dec 21, 2018 by Jonathan Turley
James Wolfe, the former head of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee, was sentenced on Thursday for lying to the FBI about leaking information to reporters. The sentencing hearing by US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson stood in sharp contrast to the one held by Judge Emmet Sullivan with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Notably, despite being head of security for a committee with highly sensitive information, Jackson handed down only a two month sentence. In contrast, Sullivan indicated that he was inclined to send Flynn away for serious time and that the hearing took on a bizarre note with references to treason and being an effective foreign mole in the White House. Wolfe asked for a sentence in the same zero to six month range as Flynn, but the prosecutors asked for a “departure” for two years. https://youtu.be/vH_awnZLtZo https://youtu.be/wmsttJfDQp0 The indictment detailed contacts with four unnamed reporters, including New York Times reporter Ali Watkins, who previously worked at BuzzFeed News and Politico. Watkins and Wolfe had a romantic relationship. Despite his action, he was able to give the court a letter of support from Chair Richard Burr, Vice Chair Mark Warner, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a former chair and former director of national intelligence James Clapper. Wolfe told the judge: “Your honor, I am so sorry, I am beyond embarrassed, I am beyond humiliated, I am beyond mortified. Those actions and my false denials were critical lapses in judgment and a personal failure on my part. It is because of what have done, no one else, that I am before this court today. I have acknowledged what I have done, broken the rules of the committee, and then lied about it.” Wolfe will self-surrender to the federal Bureau of Prisons and he asked to serve his time at a federal correctional facility in Cumberland, Maryland. He will also have to spend four months on supervised release and must do 20 hours of community service each week. He’ll also have to pay a $7,500 fine. https://jonathanturley.org/2018/12/21/former-senate-intelligence-committee-staffer-sentenced-for-lying-to-the-fbi/ Trump Dossier Author Admits He Was Hired To Help Hillary Clinton Challenge 2016 Election Results12/17/2018 Dec 17, 2018 by DC Whispers
It wasn’t about the truth. It wasn’t about what voters wanted. No, according to the now infamous (and widely discredited) anti-Trump dossier author, Christopher Steele, his primary purpose was to create chaos for the Trump campaign and then later give the Clinton Machine a weapon to be used to fight the 2016 Trump victory. Oh, and foreign agents were also used to help facilitate this plan with the apparent approval and support of both Hillary Clinton and the Obama White House. In case you were wondering – that’s bigtime illegal. Via Breitbart: Christopher Steele, the former British spy who prepared the Russia “dossier” that has led to more than two years of investigations into President Donald Trump’s campaign, has told a London court that he was hired to provide a basis to challenge the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election in the event that Trump won. He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference. His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London. The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer. In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. “Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.” Steele’s dossier was used by the FBI to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on several Trump associates. The FBI never told the FISA court explicitly that the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton campaign had paid for the dossier, though it did indicate that the document had been compiled as opposition research. The dossier, and rumors of its contents, circulated widely throughout elite Beltway circles both before and during the election. The document — whose main claims have never been corroborated — is directly responsible for claims about Russian interference in the election, which Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the media have used to cast doubt on the 2016 election — just as Steele’s employers had allegedly intended. In the last months of the election, Trump hinted he might not accept “rigged” results — a suggestion that earned him the ire of the Clinton campaign, which expected to win. Then-President Barack Obama said: ““I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.” Hillary Clinton and the DNC were allegedly doing just that. ———————– This blockbuster on-the-record admission by Steele during a UK trial is so far (yet predictably) receiving almost no attention by the Establishment Media here in America. That means it’s up to YOU, the reader, to help educate others as to what’s really going on in this ongoing globalist war against President Trump and his administration. http://dcwhispers.com/report-trump-dossier-author-admits-he-was-hired-to-help-hillary-clinton-challenge-2016-election-results/ Dec 17, 2018 by Jonathan Turley
Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the recent admission by James Comey that he intentionally circumvented the White House Counsel and Justice Department protocol to send two agents to interview then National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. It is a subject that will hopefully be raised this week when Comey appears again before Congress. Comey describes his sudden realization that he could “get away with” sending “a couple guys over” to the White House. Comey’s epiphany could be his epitaph. Here is the column: “I probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it.” Those words this week from former FBI Director James Comey could well be chiseled in marble as his epitaph. He was explaining another violation of bureau policy during his tenure days after meeting behind closed doors with House members. What was shocking was not that Comey violated protocols or policies again but the reaction of the audience to his admission. In describing how he set up a critical meeting with Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump, the audience was audibly thrilled by his cleverness in keeping Flynn unrepresented by legal counsel and unaware of the true nature of the meeting. Scheduled to testify to House members again next week, Comey may find a less rapturous reception in Congress. In his interview in New York City, Nicole Wallace asked him, “It’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State Room. How did that happen?” The audience erupted when Comey said dryly, “I sent them. Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration … or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation for over the last two years. In both of those administrations there was process.” He revealed, “So if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there would be discussions and approvals and it would be there. I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’” Just send a couple of guys over. One line could not more aptly capture Comey and his own professed view of “ethical leadership.” The interview confirmed what some of us have written about Comey for more than two years. The media consistently reinforced his image as a rules driven and principled public servant, often referring to him as an almost naive Eagle Scout. The Washington Post even ran the headline, “Boy Scout James Comey is no match for Donald Trump.” Yet, the history of Comey shows both an overriding interest in his own actions as well as a willingness to violate rules to achieve that interest. But his comments, including a call to the public to defeat Trump in a “landslide” in the next election, have stripped away any remaining pretense. The fact is, there often was more pretense than principle in his final years as director. Consider his conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former federal judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed that Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein further added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.” Then there was Comey’s response to being fired. He removed memos on his meetings with President Trump related to the Russia investigation, then leaked those to the media. The Justice Department rejected Comey’s claims that these were his memos, not FBI material. Some of the material was classified. He violated core FBI rules in removing the memos, and the man tasked to find leakers became a leaker as soon as it suited his own interests. He also undermined the investigation by revealing to Trump and others that the memos existed, information that investigators likely preferred to remain secret before they conducted key interviews. Then Comey published a book, a sharp departure from prior directors, that discussed the ongoing Russia investigation. He did not pause before rushing it to the shelves, revealing details of the investigation and various meetings while making a fortune for himself. Now Comey has again admitted to violating rules and protocols, by setting up Flynn. Ironically, Comey criticized Trump for breaking protocols in meeting with him alone and asking about an ongoing investigation. He was right in that criticism because there is a formal process for communications between the FBI and the White House. Yet, the same protocols go the other way. If the FBI seeks to interview White House officials in an investigation, they go through the Justice Department, which communicates with White House counsel to arrange the interview. He evaded both in ordering the move. What was Comey’s justification? Because he could. He refers to the “process” of other administrations. That process, however, was still in place and did not change. Moreover, he noted that he thought he could get away with it because this was “early” in the administration. That is not principle. It is opportunism. He was supposed to work through the Justice Department and not simply follow the rules only if he might be caught breaking them. Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is cited in some recently released FBI material as being irate over his decision. There is a reason for the policy of conferring with counsel. It protects not just the individual but the institution. It prevents rogue or impulsive actions and maintains a clear chain of command within the Justice Department. It is part of the internal rules in how the components of the executive branch function and communicate with each other to preserve both independence and proper review. It is part of the very delicate relationship that Comey accused Trump of violating. There was nothing noble in Comey seeking to reduce the chance that Flynn might have legal counsel. Those same liberals applauding him wildly would presumably be appalled if a police detective proudly described how he prevented a criminal suspect from speaking to a lawyer simply because he could. Flynn ultimately bears responsibility for any false statements. As special counsel Robert Mueller noted in a court filing, he should have known better, and we should not forget that Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to lying. However, that does not mean the circumstances or the conduct of FBI officials are irrelevant. The agents, including Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, who were both later fired by the FBI for their actions in this investigation, admitted that they discussed warning Flynn about criminal liability for false statements. They warned other witnesses, like former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. Yet, they not only omitted that warning with Flynn but did not raise a conflict in his denying that sanctions were discussed with Russian diplomats. They also encouraged Flynn not to bring a lawyer or to inform the White House counsel. Instead, they arranged a meeting just hours after a telephone call with McCabe. Ultimately, the agents recounted that they did not believe Flynn deliberately lied at the time. Moreover, Flynn told McCabe that he assumed McCabe had read the full transcript of his conversation with the Russian ambassador, an apparent reference to his knowledge that Russian embassy phones were tapped. The comment further raises the question of why Flynn would lie about discussing sanctions if he recalled the discussion and knew of the wiretap. Yet, Comey seemed to delight the audience by taking credit for keeping Flynn in the dark about the FBI interview. When Wallace asked what Flynn thought the FBI agents wanted, Comey replied, “I don’t think he knew. I know we didn’t tell him.” Actually, Comey didn’t tell anyone. Not the White House counsel, not the acting attorney general, not the Justice Department. He “just sent a couple of guys over” to the White House because he could “get away with it.” Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley. https://jonathanturley.org/2018/12/17/lets-just-send-a-couple-of-guys-over-comey-admits-another-violation-of-department-protocol-and-policy/ Dec 5, 2018 by John Solomon
Just before Thanksgiving, House Republicans amended the list of documents they’d like President Trump to declassify in the Russia investigation. With little fanfare or explanation, the lawmakers, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), added a string of emails between the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to their wish list. https://youtu.be/cHdwFMrT0d0 https://youtu.be/qE6kJ5hbwZo Sources tell me the targeted documents may provide the most damning evidence to date of potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), evidence that has been kept from the majority of members of Congress for more than two years. The email exchanges included then-FBI Director James Comey, key FBI investigators in the Russia probe and lawyers in the DOJ’s national security division, and they occurred in early to mid-October, before the FBI successfully secured a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The email exchanges show the FBI was aware — before it secured the now-infamous warrant — that there were intelligence community concerns about the reliability of the main evidence used to support it: the Christopher Steele dossier. The exchanges also indicate FBI officials were aware that Steele, the former MI6 British intelligence operative then working as a confidential human source for the bureau, had contacts with news media reporters before the FISA warrant was secured. The FBI fired Steele on Nov. 1, 2016 — two weeks after securing the warrant — on the grounds that he had unauthorized contacts with the news media. But the FBI withheld from the American public and Congress, until months later, that Steele had been paid to find his dirt on Trump by a firm doing political opposition research for the Democratic Party and for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and that Steele himself harbored hatred for Trump. If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI. That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent. We now know the FBI used an article from Yahoo News as independent corroboration for the Steele dossier when, in fact, Steele had talked to the news outlet. If the FBI knew Steele had that media contact before it submitted the article, it likely would be guilty of circular intelligence reporting, a forbidden tactic in which two pieces of evidence are portrayed as independent corroboration when, in fact, they originated from the same source. These issues are why the FBI email chain, kept from most members of Congress for the past two years, suddenly landed on the declassification list. The addition to the list also comes at a sensitive time, as House Republicans prepare on Friday to question Comey, who signed off on the FISA warrant while remaining an outlier in the intelligence community about the Steele dossier. Most intelligence officials, such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have embraced the concerns laid out in the Steele dossier of possible — but still unproven — collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, 10 months after the probe started and a month after Robert Mueller was named special counsel in the Russia probe, Comey cast doubt on the the Steele dossier, calling it “unverified” and “salacious” in sworn testimony before Congress. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page further corroborated Comey’s concerns in recent testimonybefore House lawmakers, revealing that the FBI had not corroborated the collusion charges by May 2017, despite nine months of exhaustive counterintelligence investigation. Lawmakers now want to question Comey about whether the information in the October email string contributed to the former FBI director’s assessment. The question long has lingered about when the doubts inside the FBI first surfaced about the allegations in the Steele dossier. Sources tell me the email chain provides the most direct evidence that the bureau, and possibly the DOJ, had reasons to doubt the Steele dossier before the FISA warrant was secured. Sources say the specifics of the email chain remain classified, but its general sentiments about the Steele dossier and the media contacts have been discussed in nonclassified settings. “If these documents are released, the American public will have clear and convincing evidence to see the FISA warrant that escalated the Russia probe just before Election Day was flawed and the judges [were] misled,” one knowledgeable source told me. Congressional investigators also have growing evidence that some evidence inserted into the fourth and final application for the FISA — a document signed by current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — was suspect. Nunes hinted as much himself in comments he made on Sean Hannity’s Fox News TV show on Nov. 20, when he disclosed the FBI email string was added to the declassification request. The release of the documents will “give finality to everyone who wants to know what their government did to a political campaign” and verify that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia during the election, Nunes said. As more of the secret evidence used to justify the Russia probe becomes public, an increasingly dark portrait of the FBI’s conduct emerges. The bureau, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, sought a warrant to spy on the duly nominated GOP candidate for president in the final weeks of the 2016 election, based on evidence that was generated under a contract paid by his political opponent. That evidence, the Steele dossier, was not fully vetted by the bureau and was deemed unverified months after the warrant was issued. At least one news article was used in the FISA warrant to bolster the dossier as independent corroboration when, it fact, it was traced to a news organization that had been in contact with Steele, creating a high likelihood it was circular intelligence reporting. And the entire warrant, the FBI’s own document shows, was being rushed to approval by two agents who hated Trump and stated in their own texts that they wanted to “stop” the Republican from becoming president. If ever there were grounds to investigate the investigators, these facts provide the justification. Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein likely hold the answers, as do the still-classified documents. It’s time all three be put under a public microscope. John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video. https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet |
AuthorChristian Patriot Archives
January 2019
Categories |