In 2013 Governor Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown signed AB 340 and AB 197 enacting the California Public Employee’s Pension Reform Act of 2013. Few people noticed that the intent of this law was to allow California to cut pension benefits, for existing retirees. Currently there are three lawsuits regarding this law headed toward the Supreme Court. Governor Brown personally intervened to encourage the Supreme Court to rule in favor of those this law.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/california-s-brown-raises-prospect-of-pension-cuts-in-downturn

Here is what Brown just said:

“There is more flexibility than there is currently assumed by those who discuss the California rule,” Brown said during a briefing on the budget in Sacramento. He said that in the next recession, the governor “will have the option of considering pension cutbacks for the first time.”

What Brown knows, and dare not tell you, is that it won’t take a recession to have the problem. The problem is already here and the economy can’t possible grow fast enough make a difference.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CALPERS”) doesn’t have nearly enough assets to cover its liability. CALPERS reports about $344 billion in assets. If we assume that represents 68% of what is required, as reported by CALPERS, it is underfunded by $161 billion.

Unfortunately that estimate is almost certainly too low. Sanford did a study published in December of 2016 and it showed that the market value of California’s pension debt was $1 trillion dollars. That amounts to a cost of $93,000 for every California household. If that is true, then CALPER was underfunded by $656 billion in 2016. It is almost certainly worse today.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/stanford-study-reveals-california-pensions-underfunded-1-trillion-or-93k-household

Let’s put that in perspective. According to the Los Angeles Times, the total budget for California during the 2017-18 fiscal year is $190.3 billion. Of that amount, the General Fund budget is estimated at $131, billion. If CALPERS cannot pay the pensions due, you and I have to pay them. There have been attempts to require public sector union employees to contribute a little more, like everyone else. The unions fought them tooth and nail. Courts have consistently ruled that these benefits are guaranteed.

When Jerry Brown talks about flexibility, he means the ability to make any cuts at all. Right now, retired Public Sector employees are guaranteed the first bite of the California apple.

If CALPERS is underfunded by a mere $161 billion, that is 122% of the entire general fund budget. If the Stanford estimate of $656 billion is accurate, that is 5 times the general fund budget. This is why Governor Brown is beyond desperate to change the law. But even if he succeeds, that won’t solve the deficit problem. It will just include cutting existing pension benefits as one of the many painful things that will be required for the state to stay solvent.

Imagine paying; say $10,000 more per year in Tax. Imagine K-12 Education spending, Health and Human Services, Higher Education, Corrections and Rehabilitation and everything else, including any spending on infrastructure cut to the bone. You are paying much higher taxes and getting next to nothing in return except a degrading educational system, poor health care and lousy roads. Everyone, except your former neighbor who used to work for the state, is feeling the pain.

That former neighbor is now living the high life with his generous California pension, including free lifetime health care. He sold his home and moved to Nevada, where he purchased a better home for a lot less money. He loves Nevada, because now he doesn’t have to pay California Income Tax, which he considers to be too high. Any attempt to reduce his pension, even by a small amount, will be met with outrage.

Even if Governor Brown gets his way and is able to cut pensions, by a little, at some distant point in the future, you will still be paying much higher taxes and all or most of that increase in taxes will be going to people like your former neighbor. This is what happens when you keep electing Democrats, totally under the control of public sector unions, who make promises with your money they can’t possibly keep.

The only question is when this will happen? The California workforce, like the rest of the country, is aging rapidly. Public sector workers can retire at a much younger age than the rest of us, and that makes the problem even worse. Perhaps, just perhaps, politicians in California will be able to kick this can down the road, a little farther, but we are rapidly running out of road.

There was an article in the Sacbee published in March 2015 that explains what is happening:

www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article20702106.html

I love the following quotes from Joe Beck, who now lives in Las Vegas: “You could see it coming in California, the big tax increases, the poorer quality of life. You know what the difference is between the people on the Titanic and people in California who voted for Brown? The people on the Titanic didn’t have a choice.”

Beck left out the part that he is very happy collecting his California pension and his primary complaint about Brown is that he is trying to cut his pension even a little.
Sadly, as bad as this is, Jerry Brown was probably a better choice for Governor than any other Democrat.

TDM

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978.  This act was in response to President Richard Nixon’s alleged use of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups.  Nixon wasn’t spying on political opponents as much as he was spying on people openly opposed to the Vietnam War.  He certainly wasn’t spying on a presidential campaign.  In some cases that surveillance was obviously justified, such as when under cover FBI agents attended a Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting, also attended by John Kerry, that openly discussed assassinating U.S. Senators who supported the war.

The 1978 law authorized the President to conduct electronic surveillance, for up to one year, but only to acquire foreign intelligence information.  This also required that there was no substantial likelihood that this surveillance would acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States Person is a party.  In the event the surveillance included a U.S. person, minimization procedures would limit the collection of information and disclosure of the name of the U.S. Person.  This also set up a FISA court which is specifically designed to authorize surveillance, if the court finds that the proposed surveillance meets certain minimization requirements regarding information pertaining to U.S. citizens.  When you read about “unmasking” it is referring to this provision of the FISA legislation.

After the 9-11 attack, George W. Bush authorized the surveillance of U.S. persons, if they were in communication with overseas terrorists. In 2006 this was codified by the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006.  In 2007 President Bush pressed for the Protect America Act of 2007, authorizing more surveillance of activity with suspected terrorists overseas.

At the time, I was very concerned.  It was obvious that George W. Bush was using this in good faith and these activities were strictly limited to hunting down terrorists.  To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever hinted that Bush used this for political purposes.  My concern was that Bush could be replaced by someone who showed no such restraint.  Sadly, that appears to be exactly what happened.  In the spring, summer and fall of 2016 the intelligence agencies appear to have been targeting the Trump campaign and later the Trump transition team.  This is exactly the kind of abuse Ted Kennedy was worried about when he lobbied for the original FISA act in 1978.

Unlike their Democratic opponents, Republicans must not try this in the court of public opinion.  The important thing is to determine the truth and present the facts to the American people.

When Devin Nunes held his press conference last March, he warned us all about this.  Democrats responded by filing an ethics charge against Nunes falsely claiming that he had disclosed classified information.  He has been completely exonerated. One could make the case that it is the Democratic Party guilty of obstructing justice.  If this is true, then smart (honorable) Democrats better get on board right now, or one will have to seriously question whether the Democratic Party can ever be trusted with national security again.

Republicans have asked Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to declassify all the documents regarding this subject.  Lawyers are taught to pound the facts, if you have the facts.  Pound the opposition if you don’t have the facts.  And if you don’t have the facts and you can’t pound the opposition, just pound.  This looks very similar to how the liberal left is responding to all of this.  Republicans, on the other hand, are definitely pounding the facts.

It is said that the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.  That has never been truer than today.

TDM

Have you noticed something lately? Adam Schiff has gone silent. The House Select Committee on Intelligence has gotten all those documents from the FBI. Silence. Diane Feinstein released the transcript of the Fusion GPS interview. Silence. For the past year Schiff has been leader of the Russia Collusion fan club. He is widely suspected of leaking information to the press that often resulted in false hope that maybe Trump did something, sort of, kinda, maybe.

Jake Tapper got his lunch handed to him by Stephen Miller. Perhaps some of the criticism stung Tapper enough to do some critically needed self-reflection. Following the Miller interview, Tapper interviewed Adam Schiff.

Tapper Confronts Adam Schiff: ‘Aren’t You Contributing to the Lack of Faith’ in DOJ and FBI?

Schiff was trying to pedal the nonsense that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation was a politically motivated witch hunt. Trapper, who is finally figuring out that the ultimate politically motivated witch hunt was the search, lead by Schiff, for the mythical Russian unicorn of collusion.

Tapper wasn’t buying it anymore.

“Well, with all due respect, Congressman, aren’t you contributing to the lack of faith in these institutions?” Tapper shot back. “All we know is that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation has started anew. There might be new evidence. There might be a legitimate reason.”

Then he ended the interview with a real zinger:

“Well, I don’t want to spend the whole time on this, but I will say you’re asserting your suspicions as fact,” Tapper stated. “And if you get facts to back up your suspicions, I would love to hear them.”

If any of those documents provided to the House Intelligence Committee even hinted at evidence of the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia, Schiff would have crowed like a rooster on Viagra. If there was any new information that provided any element of support for the Russia Dossier and the way it was handled by the FBI and the Hillary Clinton campaign, Schiff would have been all over it. He didn’t mention either subject. Instead he tried to dismiss the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, where there are actually some facts, as politically motivated.

He also expressed grave concern about President Donald Trump’s mental state, just before Trump televised the bi-partisan meeting regarding DACA and Immigration.  Even CNN realized that, whether you like him or hate him, Donald Trump looked very capable while conducting that meeting..

From here it looks like a sinking Schiff.

TDM

It is always a good idea to review original source documents when trying to evaluate events. There are two letters from Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. While the media has reported on both letters and has published excerpts, the actual letters contain significant facts that are not being reported.

Following is a link the first letter dated December 28, 2017. Both letters are addressed to Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General:

The letter states that the DOJ informed the Committee that FBI Form FD-302 interview summaries did not exist. However, in early December, the DOJ subsequently located and produced the “missing” FD-302 records. These documents involved senior DOJ and FBI officials who were swiftly reassigned.

It sure looks like there was a cover-up within the FBI and the DOJ and it is quite possible that critical documents were withheld from FBI Director Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It is obvious that a subsequent search for records was conducted that yielded documents previously reported as missing. That would explain the rapid personnel actions.

Nunes also asked the FBI to schedule interviews with Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, James Baker, Lisa Page, Sally Moyer and Greg Brower.

The second letter, dated January 4, 2018 provides more clarity:

Designated Committee investigators and staff will be given access to all remaining investigative documents in unredacted form. There is one document that will be shown directly to Devin Nunes and his senior investigators by FBI Director Christopher Wray next week.

The DOJ agreed to furnish the witness interviews and there are now additional names, Bill Priestap and James Rybicki. It appears Nunes received additional information between the December 28, 2017 letter and the January 4, 2018 letter. It seems likely this was the result of information provided to Nunes on January 3, 2018.

Then there is a very interesting statement. “It was further agreed that all documents made available to the Committee will also be available for review by the minority Ranking Member and designated staff.” That implies that the meeting yesterday, January 5, 2018, did not include Adam Schiff and while documents will be made available to him there does not seem to be a specific date scheduled.

There are numerous reports of leaks from the House Intelligence Committee. A lot of people suspect Adam Schiff. By allowing access to these documents to Republicans and Democrats at different times it will be much more difficult to leak this information to the press without being caught.

Nunes makes a summary statement: “the Committee’s investigation of potential abuses into intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ handling of the Christopher Steel dossier. The Committee is extremely concerned by indications that top U. S. Government officials who were investigating a presidential campaign relied on unverified information that was funded by the opposing political campaign and was based on Russian sources.”

For months Democrats have been screaming about alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, as of this date, we know of no evidence supporting this allegation and no one has even identified any act done by Russia that had any effect on the election. There was an allegation that Russia hacked the DNC servers, but the DNC server was never given a forensic evaluation by the FBI or the NSA, so this opinion has suspect credibility.

Nunes, on the other hand, is making allegations of collusion by the Hillary Clinton campaign and he is being very specific. When you combine this with allegations that this was enabled by senior DOJ and FBI officials it has the potential to be the worst political scandal in American history. That would explain why Nunes, Session, Wray and Rosenstein are playing this so close to the vest. As Nunes said, they are all trying to be as transparent as possible because of the major impact this could have on this country.

I do not know all the facts and neither does anyone else. But it is obvious who thinks they have the facts and who clearly doesn’t have the facts.  I also recognize the pattern used by prosecutors when they are getting ready to issue indictments.

TDM

Let’s be blunt here. Democrats have been stealing elections since day one. Anyone who doubts this need only research the history of Tammany Hall in New York. The only Republican political machine I could find was in Philadelphia and that turned Democratic when Joe Clark was elected in 1952. Historically it has been nearly impossible for anyone other than a machine candidate to win a local election in a major metropolitican area. Jane Byrne, also a Democrat, beat Chicago Mayor Michael A. Bilandic in 1979, primarily because he couldn’t get the snow plowed after a major storm. She lasted one term before she was beat by Harold Washington. She was actually part of the Democratic machine herself, having served as co-chairperson of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee under Richard J. Daley. She was only removed when Daley died in 1976. His son, Richard M. Daley was mayor of Chicago from 1989 to 2011.

Democrats were shocked when a Republican replaced Anthony Weiner because they knew the name, address and voting history of every voter in the district. Robert Turner won, primarily because Democrats ran a terrible candidate. He only served one term and was replaced by, gasp, another Democrat. I read a contemporary report saying that every registered voter in the district received a personal visit by someone with the machine who helped them understand how to vote. In some cases, very nice people even help individuals fill out their ballot and then offer to deliver it for them. If an election is close, the machine can always find enough extra votes to push their candidate over the edge. Al Frankin won the Minnesota Senate race when miraculously a couple of hundred votes surfaced at the last minute. Conveniently the margin of victory was pretty close to the number of convicted felons conveniently allowed to vote.

This is why Donald Trump set up the independent voting commission. It is also why he just dissolved it. The problem with the commission is that it was intended to be a bi-partisan effort to identify and correct voter fraud. It soon became obvious that Democrats have zero intention of cooperating. Instead they did everything possible to obstruct things. One of the Democrats on the commission sued the commission.  Trump disolved the commission and turned it over to Homeland Security.

Democrats missed something really big. The U.S. Department of Homeland Secruity (“DHS”) includes: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, The U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement, The U.S. Secrety Servie, the Transportation Security Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Citzenship and Immigration Services.

The reason the voting commission failed was that it was blocked from obtaining the documentation it required. Well, guess what folks, DHS not only has the authority to demand the data, it already has much of the data. Democrats are too busy rejoicing to realize that instead of ending the hunt, Donald Trump just turned it over to a real professional who already has access to all the guns and ammunition needed. By the way, states have been sending voting records to Homeland Security for years.

This time there will be no public hearings. Most of the investigation will be done in secrecy. In many cases no one will even realize what data is being accessed. Kris Kobach, who was a central figure in the Commission on Election Integrity did not criticize the decision by Trump, he praised it. He said this was not a change in mission, it was a change in tactics. It appears as though Democrats only succeeded in talking themselves out of a seat at the table.

TDM

The main stream media and a lot of other people are very concerned by the continued habit of President Trump to send out tweets. This morning he sent out one that may be very significant:

“Crooked Hillary Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, has been accused of disregarding basic security protocols. She put Classified Passwords into the hands of foreign agents. Remember sailor’s pictures on submarine? Jail! Deep State Justice Dept. must finally act? Also on Comey & others.”

It is important to remember that Trump knows things no one else knows. We do know that those emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computers are even worse than imagined. Numerous reports, including the one below, are reporting that government network utilized by Huma Abedin has been hopelessly compromised:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/01/abedin-forwarded-state-passwords-to-yahoo-before-it-was-hacked-by-foreign-agents/

Ms. Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government systems, to her personal Yahoo e-mail account. She allegedly used her yahoo email account to conduct sensitive government business.

Yahoo accounts were hacked by foreign powers, probably Russia. “Digital thieves made off with names, birth dates, phone numbers and passwords of users that were encrypted with security that was easy to crack.” They also obtained the security questions and backup email address used to reset lost passwords.

This may explain why the DOJ has been dragging its feet at releasing information. If this is true, they may have been very busy trying to restore security to our most sensitive systems. They may also be in a desperate search to find out what our enemies know about us.

The most dangerous secret we can disclose to our enemies is to let them know what we know about them. If this is true and it seems to be well documented, Huma Abedin put us all at risk. At best, this was incredibly stupid. But what if it was done deliberately? Why on earth would any person with an ounce of common sense send government passwords to their personal Yahoo account?

Trump specifically included Comey and that may really matter. Remember that Comey claimed that the FBI had reviewed all those emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer and it didn’t change anything. Seriously? He knew that Huma Abedin had sent government passwords to her Yahoo account and he didn’t consider that to be a problem?
James Comey sent out his own tweet on New Year’s Eve:

“Here’s hoping 2018 brings more ethical leadership, focused on the truth and lasting values,”

It is hard to imagine anything more unethical that a Director of the FBI willing to cover-up a major national security breech. Happy New Year Mr. Comey.
TDM

The New York Times is desperately trying to deflect attention away from the Trump Dossier. They are foaming at the mouth about George Papadopoulos.  This is not exactly news. It is all based on a plea bargain signed by Papadopoulos in October. There is absolutely nothing new here.

The following CNN article includes the signed agreement by Papadopoulos:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/george-papadopolous-trump-guilty/index.html

The timing is all wrong. Papadopoulos met the “professor” on or about March 14, 2016.

On or about April 26, 2016 he met the professor for breakfast. Following is a description of what the professor said:

During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that “They [the Russians] have dirt on her”; “the Russians had emails of Clinton”; “they have thousands of emails.”

Here is what CNN and the New York Times either missed or just didn’t tell you. Most hacked DNC e-mails were written after April 29, 2016. Of the 27,500 DNC e-mails, fewer than 7,000 predate April 29th.

It is extremely unlikely that this professor was talking about the DNC e-mails. If anything, he was talking about e-mails obtained by Russian Intelligence from Hillary’s illegal unsecured e-mail server. If the FBI had this information, it should have alerted them to the very real threat that highly classified e-mails processed by the Clinton personal server had been compromised by Russian intelligence. It certainly did not justify seeking a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign officials.

It would also be interesting to know how the FBI confirmed that Papadopoulos was lying. Was the breakfast with the Russian professor recorded? If so, by whom. I doubt that the Russian professor gave a statement to the FBI or anyone else. Was someone else at this meeting? If so, who was that? There are more questions than answers here

In addition, even if the story is true, it would not justify the FBI investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia. According to this report the Trump collusion investigation did not start until after the DNC e-mails were released by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. Conveniently that was shortly after James Comey’s press conference exonerating Hillary Clinton by pointing out her criminal negligence.

The WikiLeaks e-mails were not e-mails from Hillary Clinton, they were e-mails by top officials at the DNC. Here is an article in the Washington Post listing the most damaging e-mails:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/?utm_term=.5f0a075d6720

They weren’t even about Hillary Clinton. They were about the bias within the DNC mocking both Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama. If the FBI did open an investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because of this meeting by Papadopoulos with the assumption that this was about the DNC Server those involved should all be fired for incompetence and stupidity.

Once again, one must wonder if the main stream media really this stupid or are they desperately hoping we are this stupid.  It is increasingly obvious that they are beyond desperate.

TDM

Perhaps it is just me, but lately it seems like every Friday another FBI bombshell is dropped.  The Friday before Christmas FBI General Counsel James A Baker was reassigned.  Today, thanks to Judicial Watch, the FBI is releasing 2,800 e-mails from Huma Abedin that were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.  That would be the same laptop Weiner was using to sext underage girls.  These e-mails are likely to be heavily redacted.  This is a huge problem for Hillary Clinton.  If they aren’t redacted, they are likely to be more than a little embarrassing.  If they are redacted this is clear evidence that they contained highly classified information.  Odds are they will both be heavily redacted and still embarrassing.

I worked in secure facilities where there was access to highly classified information.  Everyone in that facility took security very seriously.  There were no waste baskets; every piece of paper was put into a burn bag.  We used to joke that the highest classification was “burn before reading.” No one ever considered removing classified information from this facility.  I can’t even imagine anyone sending a classified e-mail on an unsecured server.  But this wasn’t just an unsecured server; this was a server that was almost certainly compromised.  There were reports that Anthony Weiner had over 650,000 e-mails on that server.  At least some of them allegedly involved inappropriate communication with underage girls.  Odds are extremely high that Weiner’s laptop was hacked.  That is bad enough, but what makes this worse is that Huma Abedin admittedly printed copies of these e-mails because Hillary liked to read them in print. If you read my previous blogs about Huma Abedin it is easy to see why she should never have been granted a security clearance.  Huma Abedin could have easily provided copies of highly classified documents to almost anyone.  It is a case study in how to be grossly negligent with regard to highly classified information.

Every member of FBI senior management involved with the original investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail server has been removed.  At the time of the Comey statement “exonerating” Hillary by called her only extremely careless rather than grossly negligent there were several reports that FBI agents working on the investigation were furious.  Following is a report by Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html

Note the following quote from this article:

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com

In addition, the source said: “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

How, exactly, does one run for President if one can’t qualify for a security clearance?

The FBI has a totally new management team.  It would be naïve to expect them to reach the same conclusions as the Comey group.

TDM

The following article from the conservative tree house reminded me of when I watched the Evelyn Farkas interview back in March:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/26/my-oh-my-latest-reports-of-fbi-doj-counterintelligence-operation-evelyn-farkas-statements-take-on-new-light/

It is extremely important to put this interview in context. On March 21, 2017 Devin Nunes received a phone which caused him to take immediate action. He switched cars and did not tell his team where he was headed. He was on his way to the White House where an unnamed source took him into one of the most secure rooms in the world and showed Nunes information so secret that it could only be observed in that location.

Devin Nunes holds a press conference on March 22, 2017 saying that he saw evidence that there was surveillance of the Trump transition team and possibly Donald Trump himself. He then wen to the White House to brief Donald Trump. No one really knows what Nunes saw in that room. No one knows what he told Trump.

On March 27, 2017 Evelyn Farkas gave this stunning interview:

I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the Hill.” [ie. Democrat politicians] (link)

At the time I wondered why this interview was not recognized as a bombshell. I now believe a lot of people knew the significance of this. However, unlike Democrats on the hills, Republicans did not discuss this with the press. Instead, they acted.

We know that Nunes was running an investigation and he wasn’t informing his Democratic colleagues. He was justified in doing that because Farkas had publicly admitted that Democrats on the hill were active members of the conspiracy. We know that the OIG had been running an investigation since January 2017. There are hints of other, more secret, investigations. On May 16, 2017 President Trump interviewed Robert Mueller. Since Mueller was not eligible to be Director of the FBI, it was probably about something else. On May 17, 2017, Mueller was appointed special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between Trump’s campaign and Russian officials.

Following is a link to the letter appointing Mueller:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

Read this letter carefully. Perhaps the main stream media and Democrats on the hill totally missed the significance of this appointment. It is vital to realize that this was AFTER Nunes had viewed that information in the White House and it was AFTER Farkas stupidly admitted that there was a conspiracy and incredibly she implied that President Obama was in on it.

Was Mueller there to investigate links between the Trump campaign and Russia? Probably not, because by this time everyone knew there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. If he wasn’t investigating this, what would be the point? Mueller would be able to investigate the potentially illegal surveillance of the Trump transition team and the coordinated leaks of classified information by Democrats on the hill. He could even employ some of the top suspects and allow them to incriminate themselves.

What if everyone, and I do mean everyone, has had this all wrong from day one. We may soon know.

TDM

Tuesday afternoon James Baker was the General Counsel for the FBI.  He accompanied FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to the House Intelligence Committee meeting.  He was obviously there to provide a legal defense shield for McCabe.

It didn’t go well. McCabe reportedly had to admit that the only thing the FBI has confirmed about the Russia Dossier is that Carter Page did visit Russia.

Vanity Fair accidently published a story that demonstrates why Carter Page could not possibly been involved in colluding with Russia:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/federal-court-urges-carter-page-to-please-go-away

Carter Page, a man so deeply incompetent that a Kremlin agent who tried to recruit him reportedly gave up, telling his colleagues that Page was “an idiot.”

McCabe allegedly gave testimony that is charitably described as inconsistent with testimony by other witnesses.  And, by the way, he couldn’t remember seeing critical documents that allegedly were signed by him.

This is documented by the following article in Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/20/mccabe-draws-blank-on-democrats-funding-trump-dossier-new-subpoenas-planned.html

It is being reported that McCabe suddenly announced plans for an early retirement.  That seems like a wise decision, but based on the recent tweets by President Trump, he may not be given that opportunity.  Remember, Trump really likes to fire people.

This is bad enough, but there is more. McCabe may have incriminated James A. Baker, the lawyer sitting next to him. He was asked whether James A. Baker was authorized to speak to the media about the Steele Dossier and the underlying ‘counterintelligence’ operation.  McCabe said that Baker would not be authorized to take such action.

Apparently neither McCabe or Baker realized that the person asking that question had evidence that Baker was in communication with Mother Jones reporter David Corn prior to the election.  David Corn is the one who broke the story about the Russia Dossier.  By Friday, James A. Baker was reassigned from his position as FBI General Counsel.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/22/trump-dossier-fbi-james-baker-david-corn-mother-jones-316157

The liberal left is trying to downplay this story, but when you get reassigned from the top legal position in the FBI two days before Christmas that is beyond bad. In addition, the Washington Post story has a classic non-denial denial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbis-top-lawyer-said-to-be-reassigned/2017/12/21/2ac76640-e6b5-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?tid=ss_tw-amp&utm_term=.1f80ca2eb9fb

Apparently Baker “hopes” he didn’t leak classified information.  Wow!

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is going to release 1.2 million pages of documents on January 15, 2018.

We can expect one of two things to happen, if these documents confirm what appears to be obvious.  There will either be a special prosecutor appointed to pursue indictments or a criminal probe directed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  We can also count on the House Intelligence Committee issuing subpoenas and asking a lot of tough questions.  Clearly the OIG and the House Intelligence Committee are working together.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/20/572195727/politico-reporter-says-obama-administration-derailed-hezbollah-investigation

It appears the necessary house cleaning at the FBI is over.  Several agents have been reassigned, McCabe has announced his retirement and James A. Baker, FBI General Counsel was removed.  Just this week Sessions announced opening probe of Uranium One and more recently of the alleged obstruction of justice regarding Hezbollah.  The timing of these announcements is significant. Now that certain key players have been benched, the DOJ appears to be gearing up to take this on.  Attorney General Jess Sessions is now in charge.

An interesting question is whether Mueller is part of the problem or part of the solution.  In addition Bill Priestap, who was right in the middle of everything, is not being mentioned.  More than one person has noticed this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/12/how_husbands_and_wives_figure_in_the_latest_government_scandal_revelations.html

We may all learn a lot more about Bill Priestap in the near future, either as the target of an investigation or as the ultimate whistle blower.  Either way, it is not exaggerating to say this could be the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States.

Sir Walter Scott:  “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

TDM