Tuesday, December 31, 2019
The ‘Great Revolt’ Enters a New Phase
How the populist uprising of 2016
will reverberate in 2020
WESTBY, WISCONSIN—In a country increasingly engaged in national politics and divided, the next 12 months may feel like 12 years.
Voters in both trenches are eager to vote, convinced not only of victory but also of vindication. The shocking result in 2016 wasn’t a black swan, an irregular election deviating from normalcy, but instead the indicator of the realignment Brad Todd and I describe in The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, now available in a new a paperback edition in time for the 2020 election season.
The story of America’s evolving political topography is one of the tectonic plates that slowly grind against one another until a break notably alters the landscape with seismic consequences—a sudden lurch long in development.
The election of President Donald Trump cemented a realignment of the two political parties rooted in cultural and economic change years in the making. Although he has been the epicenter of all politics since his announcement of candidacy in 2015, Trump is the product of this realignment more than its cause, a fact that becomes clear as you travel the back roads to the places that made him the most unlikely president of our era.
Thirty-year-old dairy farmer Ben Klinkner doesn’t consider himself a member of either political party. “I am a Christian conservative,” he says matter-of-factly.
Sitting at conference table at the Westby Co-op Credit Union, the sixth-generation family farmer who has a master’s degree in meat science explains that when he left to attend college at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, and then at North Dakota State University in Fargo for his master’s, he vowed he would never milk a cow again.
“And I’ve been doing just that every day for the past six years,” he said.
On Trump, Klinkner is pragmatic. “I am very happy with his policies. I just wish he’d put that Twitter down,” he said of the president’s unorthodox style of communicating. This cuts against the national media’s narrative that farmers will dump the president because of the trade uncertainty.
And, yes, Klinkner will vote for him again.
How Trump Did It
Trump’s 2016 victory came in spite of his historically weak performance in the suburbs long dominated by Republicans. The key was that he more than overcame his suburban weakness with the mass conversion of blue-collar voters in ancestrally Democratic bastions of the Midwest, and he inspired irregular voters who mistrust both parties. For The Great Revolt, we traveled to the counties in the Great Lakes states that Trump wrested away from Democratic heritage to find examples of the voter archetypes that define the Trump coalition.
Large strata of the population are now not just eager to vote in the next race for president but eager to vote against the party of their ancestry. This enthusiasm for new alliances is perhaps the greatest indicator of lasting realignment.
The election of Trump glued populism to conservatism, an ideology long leavened by anti-establishment rhetoric but rooted in the inertial acquiescence to the status quo that comes with laissez-faire policies. In Trump, Republicans have embraced, or have been forced to embrace, a more muscular and activist approach on issues ranging from trade policy to nonstop legal warfare with liberal state governments like California’s. Gone is the consistency of federalism, replaced in conservatism’s pantheon with the base-motivating potency of perpetual confrontation.
The emotional exertion of Trump’s combative approach continues to provide Democrats with avenues of appeal to buttoned-up suburbanites who otherwise resist liberal policies. And it has forced populists on the Left to copy Trump’s antagonistic style, elevating Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the edgiest of the Democratic contenders for president, into front-runners.
Democratic populists seek to copy Trump’s success but not to win back the same populist voters who flipped margins by 32 points from 2012 to 2016 in places like Ashtabula, Ohio, or 18 points in Erie, Pennsylvania, both of which we profiled in The Great Revolt. Democrats such as Warren and Sanders have given up on winning those places—and those Obama voters.
Instead, Sanders and Warren hope to emulate Trump’s success with their party’s version of the voters we called Perotistas, those whose participation in elections is irregular, even elliptical, and who pass into voting booths every decade or so like comets crashing into an otherwise orderly solar system, only to disappear just as abruptly.
Suburban Voters Hold the Keys
For his part, the president has accepted his path, choosing not to broaden his appeal by tapering his temperament to one that might suit the two-income, two-degree Republican-leaning suburban families who split their tickets in 2016 and then chose Democratic congressmen in 2018. These voters crave predictability and civility at a gut level, two things in short supply in Trump’s style, but they tell pollsters they are wary of the lurch toward socialism in today’s Democratic Party. Thus far, their hearts have overpowered their heads in off-year elections in the Trump era, and Democrats are banking on the same result in 2020.
Whether or not the president ever turns his attention to winning over the voters who resist both socialism and his own style, other Republicans will be appealing to them. Suburban voters hold the keys to hotly contested 2020 Senate races in Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, and Colorado—not to mention the entire slate of competitive House districts.
The suburbs may be where control of government will be decided, but the 2020 election will not be the end of the coalition Trump mobilized in 2016 or the resistance that formed in response. Why? Because the individualization of our cultural economy and the self-sorting of our communities will keep fueling distrust of establishment institutions and keep roiling our political and consumer behaviors. Establishment politicians, CEOs, and journalists all ignore the dynamism of this great revolt at their own peril.
After unexpected election, Trump delivers, big time
written by Adriana Cohen for Boston Herald
The first is that President Trump has delivered since his unexpected election.
What’s happened is a monumental power shift from tone-deaf coastal elites — with their cushy lifestyles and luxury trips to Davos, on private jets of course — to the “forgotten” man, those millions of Americans who actually do the real work of keeping our nation and economy afloat.
Trump spent his career building skyscrapers, hotels and other brick-and-mortar properties around the world, employing thousands in the private sector. As a result, he’s always understood and respected construction workers and other everyday Americans who built this country.
He’s a natural fit to lead a movement that represents the working class in this decades-in-the-making populist uprising.
To the left’s dismay, he’s delivered in spades.
Three years into his presidency we’re experiencing a golden age of prosperity.
“Wages for nonsupervisory employees — who make up 82% of the workforce — are rising at the fastest rate in more than a decade,” reports the Wall Street Journal. And for the first time in memory pay increases for the bottom 25% of wage earners rose 4.5% — more than for those in the top 25%, whose wages rose by only 2.9%, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
So when far-left senators like Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., say GOP policies are only benefiting the rich, they’re either lying or woefully uninformed — you pick.
The current administration’s creation of over 7 million jobs — including 500,000 manufacturing jobs — has resulted in historically low unemployment for all. Add to it the game-changing trade deals being renegotiated with China, finally putting America first, something that needed to be done for decades and that no prior president of either party had the chutzpah to do.
President Trump also scrapped the job-killing NAFTA, replacing it with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, which the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates will create 177,000 jobs and add $68.2 billion to the U.S. economy.
For years, coastal elites like Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., snubbed their noses at the very same people they’re supposed to represent, the middle class, and it’s finally come back to bite them.
It’s no wonder the left is pushing its impeachment charade based on zero crimes. It’s a political tactic to distract from the roaring economy and jobs bonanza benefiting our neighbors, co-workers and families.
There’s only one problem, it won’t work. Voters are much smarter than they think.
A few things come into sharp focus as the Teens wind to a close and we embark upon a new decade.
The first is that President Trump has delivered since his unexpected election.
Upon arrival, the brash billionaire with a backbone told self-serving globalists who hung the working class out to dry for decades to take a hike.
What’s happened is a monumental power shift from tone-deaf coastal elites — with their cushy lifestyles and luxury trips to Davos, on private jets of course — to the “forgotten” man, those millions of Americans who actually do the real work of keeping our nation and economy afloat.
Trump spent his career building skyscrapers, hotels and other brick-and-mortar properties around the world, employing thousands in the private sector. As a result, he’s always understood and respected construction workers and other everyday Americans who built this country.
He’s a natural fit to lead a movement that represents the working class in this decades-in-the-making populist uprising.
To the left’s dismay, he’s delivered in spades.
Three years into his presidency we’re experiencing a golden age of prosperity.
“Wages for nonsupervisory employees — who make up 82% of the workforce — are rising at the fastest rate in more than a decade,” reports the Wall Street Journal. And for the first time in memory pay increases for the bottom 25% of wage earners rose 4.5% — more than for those in the top 25%, whose wages rose by only 2.9%, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
So when far-left senators like Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., say GOP policies are only benefiting the rich, they’re either lying or woefully uninformed — you pick.
The current administration’s creation of over 7 million jobs — including 500,000 manufacturing jobs — has resulted in historically low unemployment for all. Add to it the game-changing trade deals being renegotiated with China, finally putting America first, something that needed to be done for decades and that no prior president of either party had the chutzpah to do.
President Trump also scrapped the job-killing NAFTA, replacing it with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, which the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates will create 177,000 jobs and add $68.2 billion to the U.S. economy.
For years, coastal elites like Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., snubbed their noses at the very same people they’re supposed to represent, the middle class, and it’s finally come back to bite them.
It’s no wonder the left is pushing its impeachment charade based on zero crimes. It’s a political tactic to distract from the roaring economy and jobs bonanza benefiting our neighbors, co-workers and families.
There’s only one problem, it won’t work. Voters are much smarter than they think.
The Year the World Went Mad
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own
and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall
and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall
Now that it’s over, can we all agree that 2019 was a mess? The best part about it was that not much got done in Washington. The economy grew not in spite of that fact, but because of it. The economy thrives on stability, and Democrats controlling the House brought a degree of that – none of their crazy ideas were going anywhere, thankfully, so the economy is safe…for now.
The economic boom and historically low unemployment allowed everyone to focus on other things, and to go crazy over them.
We will remember 2019 as the year liberals started their crusade to wipe out gender. The party of science decided all of human history and common sense were wrong; evil, actually. An “innie” can be an “outie” simply by declaration.
Crazy in individuals is one thing – who cares how anyone else wants to live their life? But the left is never content to leave people alone to live their lives, they demand obedience. As such, they do not accept the tolerance of delusions, they insist everyone else embrace those delusions as well. John wanting to be called Janet is one thing, ruining someone’s life because they think Janet is using the urinal next to them isn’t normal is another. Yet that’s where we are, that’s what the Democratic Party embraced in 2019.
It’s barely worth covering because nothing was covered more in 2019, but it was the year of investigations. There may be no living man who’s been more thoroughly investigated than Donald Trump. Short of murder, there isn’t much that the president wasn’t accused of by someone, and no one who’d so much as had their picture taken with him who Democrats didn’t subpoena. The fact that they found nothing, no illegality, hasn’t deterred them.
So obsessed with ruining Trump, Democrats finally invented charges on which to impeach him. A normal person would reassess their life choices that led them to that point, especially after having been proven wrong so many times before. Not Democrats. Junkies can always justify why one more fix is no big deal.
Coupled with the Democratic Party addiction to anti-Trump rage is the Democrats in the media sparking it up like they were Hunter Biden in the VIP room at a strip club.
Journalism died a long time ago, its zombie corpse is still desecrating its memory, and 2019 was a banner year for that desecration. Two years of hyping the Mueller investigation was quite possibly the biggest “own goal” in history. Rather than learn from it, rededicate themselves to the concept of journalism in an attempt to salvage some semblance of dignity, they pretended what was simply wasn’t.
When Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported on the abuses of the Obama administration’s spying on the Trump campaign, and how the bogus “Steele Dossier” was central to all of it, something they and Democrats denied for years, they closed their eyes, put their finger in their ears, and screamed “LALALALALALA!”
There is no way the Chuck Todds and Brian Stelters of the world don’t know they aren’t telling their audiences the truth. There’s a three-letter word for knowingly telling people something that is untrue, what was it again? And no, it’s not “CNN,” although it could be.
That these overpaid teleprompter readers have not only no dignity but also no shame is why their profession is more despised than many diseases. At least diseases have no choice in the damage they do…
This year will also be remembered as the year of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the time Democrats finally stopped pretending. They stopped pretending to love the country, to love Americans. Rather than reject the hatred “the squad” spewed, they all became them.
There isn’t an American they haven’t accused of being some sort of “ist” or “phobe,” most likely both.
There must be a strain of self-loathing in liberals that runs deeper than in “goth” kids, they yearn for abuse, to be “the problem.” They are, just not in the way they think.
Watching the year 2019 come to an end is bittersweet. Yes, the political left has exposed themselves for the lying frauds they are, and showed the country and its people the contempt in which they hold it, but it also leads into a year where they may take power.
They’ve been subtly subverting and manipulating people for a long time, has the country crossed the tipping point? Will all their lies and division succeed? Or are there enough sane Americans left to turn them back? We’ll find out in November. Happy New Year.
Disgruntled Pope Francis pulls himself free from woman’s grasp
December 31, 2019
ROME (Reuters) – A visibly indignant Pope Francis had to pull himself away from a woman in a crowd in St Peter’s Square on Tuesday after she grabbed his hand and yanked him toward her.
Pope Francis was walking through the square in Vatican City and greeting pilgrims on his way to see the large Nativity scene set up in the huge, cobbled esplanade.
After reaching out to touch a child, the pope turned away from the crowd only for a nearby woman to seize his hand and pull her toward him. The abrupt gesture appeared to cause him pain and Francis swiftly wrenched his hand free.
The woman had made the sign of the cross as the pope had approached. It was not clear what she was saying as she subsequently tugged him toward her.
https://www.oann.com/disgruntled-pope-francis-pulls-himself-free-from-womans-grasp/
ROME (Reuters) – A visibly indignant Pope Francis had to pull himself away from a woman in a crowd in St Peter’s Square on Tuesday after she grabbed his hand and yanked him toward her.
Pope Francis was walking through the square in Vatican City and greeting pilgrims on his way to see the large Nativity scene set up in the huge, cobbled esplanade.
After reaching out to touch a child, the pope turned away from the crowd only for a nearby woman to seize his hand and pull her toward him. The abrupt gesture appeared to cause him pain and Francis swiftly wrenched his hand free.
The woman had made the sign of the cross as the pope had approached. It was not clear what she was saying as she subsequently tugged him toward her.
CLIMATE PREDICTION SWINGS AND MISSES: A DECADE OF ALARMIST STRIKE OUTS, 2010-2019
CLIMATE PREDICTION SWINGS AND MISSES:
A DECADE OF ALARMIST STRIKE OUTS, 2010-2019
What follows are climate predictions forecast to come true during the 2010s - one for each year. A few timely missed predictions for 2020 are also added as a bonus feature. WATCH THE VIDEO VERSION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST.
2010
In 1988, NASA’s James Hansen predicted that by 2010-2020, global temperatures will be 4 to 6 degrees warmer than 1958.
Source: Associated Press, June 11, 1986 But average global temperature has increased by only by perhaps 1.8F since 1958.
Source: Berkeley Earth
2011
In 2008, Australian media fretted the ongoing drought would never break. But by 2011, Australia had so much rain, sea-level had fallen.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald, January 4, 2008
Source: The Guardian, August 23, 2013
2012
Columnist predicts famine by 2012 unless we go vegan.
Source: The Guardian, December 23, 2002
2013
Navy researcher says Arctic to be ice-free by 2013.
Source: December 12, 2007
2014
In 2009, Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in 2014.
Source: USA Today, December 14, 2009
2015
A study published in Nature warned than an ice-free Arctic in 2015 could lead to a catstrophic methane release.
Source: The Guardian, July 24, 2013
2016
In 2013, a Navy scientist predicted the Arctic could be ice-free as early as 2016, ‘84 years ahead of conventional projections.’
Source: The Guardian, December 9, 2013
2017
Prince Charles predicted back in 2009 that we only had 96 months to save the planet. July 9, 2017 came and went and we are still here.
Source: The Independent, July 9, 2009
2018
In 1988, the United Nations predicted the Maldives would be completely under water by 2018. 
Source: Agence France-Presse, September 26, 1988
2019
In 1989, NASA scientist James Hansen predicted New York City’s West Side Highway would be underwater by 2019 among other never-happened calamities. 
Source: Salon, October 23, 2001
Bonus Failed 2020 Prediction
Secret 2004c Pentagon report says Britain will have a Siberian climate by 2020.
Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2004
Bonus Failed 2020 Prediction
In 2000, it was predicted that heavy snow would disappear for 20 years and then return an leave us “unprepared.”
Source: The Independent, March 20, 2000The 12 Biggest Hollywood Losers In 2019
Now is the time annual compilation lists come out. While most focus on the year’s best, these are the bottom-dwellers in entertainment this year.
The “Best of…” list is required this time of year. The calendar is about to wrap up, so the timing is natural, and frankly writers are not too eager to put in serious work around the holidays.
But while most are eager to collect their opinions on the top films, shows, performances, etc., notable misfires also took place in the past year. There was plenty of wreckage by the side of the road in the entertainment industry.
Here is a listing of the people, companies, and trends that performed poorly, suffered greatly by audience apathy, or had other reasons to be grateful to purchase a brand-new calendar this week.
While operationally everything is sound with the revolutionary streaming giant, this year was full of foreboding news. Subscribership plateaued for the first time in company history, and significant competition has reared up.
In November both Disney and Apple debuted competitive streaming services, and more are on the horizon, with NBC/Universal starting one in the spring and WarnerBrothers-HBO also joining the fray. Not only is this a threat competitively, but also to content.
Disney has pulled much of its own library from Netflix, and that of 20th Century Fox. Netflix is losing the “Friends” catalogue in a matter of days, and it paid a massive $100 million to retain the rights to “The Office,” its most popular show, for just one more year.
The biggest challenge is that of the top ten most popular items for streaming on its platform, eight have the rights with other competitors. Up ahead is a crowded marketplace and a diminished vault of programming.
While many celebrities can deliver a pathos-filled personal story, Smollett’s race-based attack hoax was notable for how long it lasted and how widely it affected. It became a national story, involving the recording industry, television, news, and even politicians running for the presidency.
For weeks after it was recognized as a hoax, the story continued to run. Now the man who is believed to have staged it to save his job on “Empire” has been written out of that show, and his career is regarded in limbo.
While it is noble to want to see more women in the industry, that is a far cry from force-feeding feminist ideology to audiences. Instead of simply featuring females, this year there was a direct effort to loudly announce the female-centric aspect in titles, and audiences largely avoided these.
It began with Brie Larsen using her “Captain Marvel” platform to lecture men on toxicity, leading to off-screen strife. “Miss Bala” was a reworked female-action piece that was disparaged, and “Black Christmas” was an ignored horror reboot that addressed misogyny and Me Too.
In summer a female version of “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” delivered little in the way of interest. Meanwhile, a reboot of “Charlie’s Angels” — which has feminism in its DNA already — was trumpeted by the production as even more of a feminist lecture and essentially told men the movie was not for them. Of course, when it bombed, it was blamed on the men.
4. Franchise Failures
While complaints about Hollywood becoming bereft of original content have long been voiced, this year in particular saw a flood of derivative offerings. Despite Hollywood’s reliance upon pre-existing audience interest, a number of very well-established franchises flamed out.
“Terminator” was a massive loser, and “Charlie’s Angels” was cast into purgatory. Sony Pictures saw little interest in its attempt to reinvigorate “Men In Black,” which failed to break $100 million this summer.
“Godzilla: King Of The Monsters” did about one half of the business of the 2014 hit, and only with a healthier foreign response it just might break even. “Shaft,” “Child’s Play,” and “Hellboy” were other attempts at reestablishing properties that ticket buyers cast aside.
When “Suicide Squad” was in production in 2016, the actor strove mightily to create his own version of the iconic DC villain, his attempt to follow the Oscar-caliber portrayal by the late Heath Ledger. But Leto took it to extremes. While he worked to make “Squad” his movie, he later found his character was despised, and his screentime cut to only 10 minutes.
This year, while he had been promised his own stand-alone film, Warner Brothers also gave director Todd Phillips the greenlight to make an origin story for The Joker. Leto opposed the idea and fought with everyone—the studio, his agency, the press—to stop the film.
Warner cut Phillips’ budget, hoping to dissuade him, but he instead made a rich backstory for Joaquin Phoenix and “The Joker” grossed more than $1 billion globally. Jared ended up switching agencies after burning through four different agents during his fight. The upcoming Harley Quinn movie “Birds Of Prey” has no Joker involved, and Leto’s film now seems to have fallen away completely.
Dozens of titles that wrap some of the big names did so this year with unsatisfying departures. “Game of Thrones” left fans debating the merits for weeks. The Fox culmination of its “X-Men” run, “Dark Phoenix,” was so widely derided it led to a chorus of fans saying “Thank God the rights will be back with Marvel.”
The once-powerful Sylvester Stallone franchise “Rambo” managed to go out with an embarrassing whimper. And currently there seems to be a collective sigh in The Force, as the last entry in the Star Wars saga has met ambivalence and diminished business. Sure, it is going to make a ton of cash, but for what is arguably the most beloved cultural offering here to conclude after 40 years in such tepid fashion is rather remarkable.
It would be tough to find a studio that suffered more in 2019. While it had a smattering of small hits, like “Rocketman” and the reboot of “Pet Sematary,” netting a small profit, it sustained substantial losses.
“Dora and the Lost City of Gold” failed to launch a franchise in August, followed by two huge setbacks. The Will Smith action piece “Gemini Man” failed here and abroad, making for an estimated $75 million loss. That was immediately followed by the failure of “Terminator: Dark Fate,” which has been estimated to be in the red from between $100-130 million.
This means that within a matter of weeks Paramount took losses in excess of $200 million.
The actor has fallen quite far from his A-list days. He is producing little more than direct-to rental fare these days. Last year saw him star in the widely ridiculed “Gotti,” a DVD-quality film wrongfully released into theaters. This year saw him in laughably bad titles that would not even inspire casual Amazon Prime clicks.
“Trading Paint” posed Travolta as a car racer in a meandering family drama with country singer Shania Twain attempting to become an actress. In another bizarre music connection, he later starred in “The Fanatic,” directed by former Limp Bizkit lead singer Fred Durst. In this mess he was a mentally challenged street performer harboring an unhealthy obsession with an action star. Bad movie lovers were thrilled to invest $1.50 at RedBox to behold these fiascos.
Speaking of “Gotti,” the sole reason it saw theaters was MoviePass making a strained attempt at movie distribution. The infamous cinema subscriber outfit offered movie viewers a flat monthly fee to see as many movies as they pleased. Understandably, this became a financial catastrophe.
The company attempted numerous versions of its offering, from limiting viewings to once per day, and making blockbuster hits ineligible for the service. It suspended its annual pass option last year, telling customers they had to subscribe on a monthly basis, as well as other limitations.
In February a customer class-action lawsuit was brought against the company, claiming it operated a bait-and-switch. By April, its subscriber base had fallen to just 10 percent of its peak, and finally in September it ceased operations entirely.
Upstart distributor STX Entertainment has been having a rough patch, and this year was brutal. Amid some other underperforming releases, the company was especially focused on a summer family release, an animated film based on the Ugly Dolls toy line. STX really swung for the fences—only it was batting with a broomstick.
First it acquired the worldwide rights to the toys, then lined up more than 100 partner companies globally to aid in promotion, and set up an animated series to play on Hulu. A budget of at least $50 million was nearly matched with as much promotional dollars. The result was a dismal $8.5 million opening weekend and a paltry $20 million total run in North America. That return completely undermined the global rollout.
Then just a few weeks ago STX released “The Playmobil Movie.” It became one of the worst openings for a film released into 2,000 theaters of all time. These disasters have led to the company holding back on future releases due to budgetary problems.
It has been a tough year for properties involving the zaftig comedic actress from “Pitch Perfect.” She began on Valentine’s Day with the lightly regarded “Isn’t It Romantic” that barely achieved a heartbeat in theaters.
During the summer she was in the reworked “The Hustle” with Anne Hathaway that was easily overlooked, and then she closed out the year is the widely ridiculed musical monstrosity, “Cats.” It included a much-ridiculed musical number where she dances with cockroaches.
Worst Title: Tough to do worse than the limited release anime feature: “I Want To Eat Your Pancreas.”
Worst Song: While not nearly as bad as Pitbull on the “Aquaman” soundtrack last year, the remake of “Pet Sematary” by Starcrawler was a weak attempt to duplicate The Ramones, much like the movie itself.
Worst Hair: As remarkably bad as “The Fanatic” is, Travolta’s tonsure compounds the problems.
Worst Weekend: Despite the release of the successful “Detective Pikachu,” it overshadowed the releases of “The Hustle,” the cheerless alleged comedy “Poms,” and the completely ignored biopic “Tolkien.”
Whiplash Effect: Keanu Reeves was in one of the worst titles of the year with “Replicants,” but also was in the smash hit “John Wick 3,” as well as voicing the stunt toy Duke Kaboom in “Toy Story 4.”
Audacious Marketing Award: While opening against “Toy Story 4” proved a fatal mistake United Artists had a gutsy poster campaign for “Child’s Play,” where a Chucky doll was shown exterminating various characters from that film.
Most Niche Category: The curiosity “Lords Of Chaos” was in limited release, about heavy metal music in Norway. It is described as being from the very specific sub-genre, “Biography Drama Horror Music Thriller.”
AmVets Spokesman: President Trump keeps promises to veterans
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 9:33 AM PT — Tuesday, December 31, 2019
https://www.oann.com/amvets-spokesman-president-trump-keeps-promises-to-veterans/
Impeachment has “greatly increased the likelihood” of Trump reelection and GOP retaking House
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) predicted Monday that it would be more difficult for House Democrats to remain in control of the House following passage of articles of impeachment against President Trump.
In a video tweeted Monday evening, the 2020 candidate for president wrote that Trump's chances of winning reelection had been "greatly increased" because of the House's vote.
"Unfortunately, the House impeachment of the president has greatly increased the likelihood Trump will remain the president for the next 5 years," Gabbard says in the video.
"We all know that Trump is not going to be found guilty by the U.S. Senate," she added.
In 2020, we will have a new president in the White House. How many of you do NOT want that to be Donald Trump? I certainly don't. Unfortunately, the House impeachment of the president has greatly increased the likelihood Trump will remain the president for the next 5 years … pic.twitter.com/FRRlbWHyo7
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) December 31, 2019
The remarks are not the first Gabbard has made warning against Trump's impeachment. She made similar comments just days ago in New Hampshire, arguing that Trump's supporters would be emboldened by the House's move heading in to 2020.
"I think impeachment, unfortunately, will only further embolden Donald Trump, increase his support and the likelihood that he'll have a better shot at getting elected while also seeing the likelihood that the House will lose a lot of seats to Republicans," she told ABC News.
Gabbard was the only House Democrat to vote "present" earlier this month as the articles of impeachment passed the House.
Pelosi's half right constitutional claim leaves the House all wrong
Liberal Democrat Jonathan Turley’s opinion at The Hill
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has penned an editorial column in support of the refusal of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to submit House articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. Tribe declares this strategy is not just constitutional but also commendable. That view may be half right on the Constitution. However, it leaves Pelosi all wrong on her unprecedented gaming of the system. The withholding of the articles is not only facially inappropriate. It shatters the fragile rationale for the rush to impeach.
Tribe focuses on a point on which I agree entirely. We both have criticized the position of Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, who testified with me in the House Judiciary Committee hearings, that President Trump has not really been impeached. Feldman insists that impeachment occurs only when the articles and a slate of House trial managers are submitted to the Senate for trial. However, there is no support for that interpretation in the text or history of the Constitution. Indeed, English impeachments by the House of Commons often were not taken up for trial in the House of Lords, yet all those individuals still were referenced as impeached.
Now for our point of disagreement. The Constitution does not state that the House must submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate at any time, let alone in a specific period of time. Tribe insists this means that the “House rules unmistakably leave to the House itself” when to submit an impeachment for trial. There are, in fact, two equal houses of Congress. Faced with a House manipulating the system, the Senate can change its rules and simply give the House a date for trial then declare a default or summary acquittal if House managers do not come. It is the list of House trial managers that is necessary for Senate proceedings to commence.
The “standing rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials” are triggered when the House gives notice that “managers are appointed.” The Senate is given notice of the impeachment in the congressional record shared by both houses. The articles are later “exhibited” by the managers at the trial. Waiting for the roster of managers is a courtesy shown by the Senate to the House in preparing its team of managers for the trial. We have never experienced this type of bicameral discourtesy where the House uses articles of impeachment to barter over the details of the trial. Just as the Senate cannot dictate the handling of impeachment investigations, the House cannot dictate the trial rules.
Tribe calls it “utter nonsense” to accuse Pelosi of “constitutional betrayal” for holding up the impeachment trial. Yet just because the Constitution does not declare such a withholding to be wrong does not make it right. Tribe was appropriately outraged when the Senate refused to vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland during the final year of the Obama administration. While the rules “unmistakably leave” to the Senate itself when, if ever, to vote on a nominee, Tribe has treated that decision by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a constitutional betrayal, even calling McConnell “McTurtle” over his position on such powers.
Under its rules, the Senate shows comity to the House in waiting until the roster of managers is sent, just as the House shows comity to the Senate in submitting an impeachment without conditions. The two articles were passed by the House to submit a president for trial, not to empower Pelosi to unilaterally use impeachment as a means to coerce an equal chamber. Yet Tribe commends Pelosi for her unprecedented delay of the process. What is most remarkable about the stance that Pelosi has taken is how it has already damaged the position of the House, and could even create lasting damage for the House as an institution. Not only did the House refuse to subpoena critical witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, but they also inexplicably withdrew the subpoena of a key aide to Bolton shortly before a federal court was prepared to rule on it.
The result is an inferential impeachment case without the testimony of witnesses with possible direct knowledge of quid pro quo over Ukrainian aid. Democratic leaders insisted there was no time to spend even a couple of months building a better case since there was a Trumpian “crime spree” in progress. By wasting months and not getting more testimony, Pelosi left it up to the Senate to create a record unwisely and quickly abandoned by the House. It is a highly ironic position, given the historical opposition to any witnesses by Democratic senators, including now Minority Leader Charles Schumer, during the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton. Only three depositions were allowed, with no live testimony, back then.
Tribe, who testified with me during the Clinton impeachment hearings, now calls such a trial without witnesses a sham. The strategy of Pelosi is unlikely to succeed with the Senate, but it has succeeded in making a mockery of the rushed rationale. It is like a neighborhood watchman calling for urgent police action then refusing to give any information about a crime until he gets certain assurances on the trial conditions.
Tribe insists that Pelosi is justified as McConnell said he will not follow his oath to do “impartial justice” and accuses him of a “clear violation” of his oath as a juror. Before the Clinton trial, however, Democratic senators said the same thing without such objections. Schumer, who has declared the statement by McConnell an “astonishing admission of partisanship,” had actually campaigned on a pledge to not impeach or convict Clinton and also dismissed objections to his suggestions that he should act like an impartial juror. Tribe also does not mention a long line of Democratic senators who declared Trump guilty before even the start of a trial.
In reality, a jury of politicians judging the alleged use of public office for personal gain is like having the Pirates of Penzance sitting as jurors in a maritime salvage case. Pelosi is demanding the Senate allow witnesses, which Democrats opposed during the Clinton trial, while holding up the start of a trial, which Democrats until recently insisted was so urgent that they could not wait for supportive testimony or court rulings. All this is being done for the implausible purpose of forcing the Senate to yield to House demands in order to receive a case that it does not want to try.
Pelosi is more likely to prompt a change in the Senate rules to deter this and future gaming of the system by dropping the courtesy of waiting for a House submission of managers. That would be a tragedy, since it is a long tradition going back to England, and courtesies like civility are now rare in Washington. Pelosi would have better served the House by taking the time to build a proper case for removing Trump. Instead, however, she went for a short investigation to fulfill a pledge to impeach by Christmas, and then complained that the Senate might not call witnesses that the House failed to compel to testify. That is the problem of playing chicken by yourself. Your opponent can watch you drive over a cliff of your own choosing.
FBI Agent Who Interviewed Gen. Flynn Played Critical Role in Trump Campaign Investigation
DOJ internal investigation reveals the special agent was supervisor of Crossfire Hurricane, played key role in problematic FISA application
One of the special FBI agents who interviewed President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, at the White House in January 2017, played a much bigger role in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign—known as Crossfire Hurricane—than previously assumed, a report by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz reveals.
The agent was first introduced into the public realm in a May 11, 2018, letterfrom Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who inquired about the FBI’s interview with Flynn.
Grassley specifically asked that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “make Special Agent Joe Pientka available for a transcribed interview with Committee staff no later than one week following the production of the requested documents.”
In a report released in December by Horowitz on the FBI’s FISA abuse during its investigation of the Trump campaign, the role of an unidentified FBI supervisory special agent (SSA)—described in Horowitz’s report as “SSA 1”—was featured prominently throughout. The description of events and dates match the public information on Pientka’s actions, and on Dec. 13, Pientka was confirmed by Fox News as being “SSA 1.”
The inspector general report noted that all the participating members of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team were selected by Strzok, Pientka, and “the Intel Section chief,” who is almost certainly intelligence analyst Jonathan Moffa, who, according to July 16, 2018, testimony from Lisa Page, worked on both the Clinton and Trump investigations with Strzok.
On page xviii of the inspector general report, it was disclosed that Pientka was running the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign as its supervisor. Pientka also was the agent who provided defensive briefings to the Trump and Clinton campaigns in August 2016.
“We learned during the course of our review that in August 2016, the supervisor of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, SSA 1 [Pientka], participated on behalf of the FBI in a strategic intelligence briefing given by Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to candidate Trump and his national security advisors, including Michael Flynn, and in a separate strategic intelligence briefing given to candidate Clinton and her national security advisors,” the report states.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), during congressional testimony given by Horowitz, noted that the FBI used this meeting as an opportunity to effectively spy on the Trump campaign and gather further information—a characterization that Horowitz agreed with. Horowitz also said in his testimony he was concerned about this practice:
Sen. Graham: “So when we get defensively briefed tomorrow, would it be okay for FBI agents to open up 302s on what we said?”
Mr. Horowitz: “We have very significant concerns about that.”
Horowitz noted in his report that Pientka was specifically selected to “provide the FBI briefings, in part, because Flynn, who was a subject in the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation, would be attending the Trump campaign briefing.”
Just prior to this defensive briefing, on Aug. 1, 2016, Strzok and Pientka “traveled to the European city to interview the FFG [Friendly Foreign Government] officials who met with Papadopoulos in May 2016.” The IG report noted that “during the interview they learned that Papadopoulos did not say that he had direct contact with the Russians.”
It also appears that Pientka was in charge of selecting the Confidential Human Sources (CHS) that were used against George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Flynn:
“In determining how to use CHSs in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, SSA 1 and the case agents told the OIG that they focused their CHS operations on the predicating information and the four named subjects,” the inspector general report states.
The report describes “a consensually recorded meeting in August 2016 between Carter Page and an FBI CHS.” The IG noted that Pientka and “Case Agent 1 told the OIG that this meeting was important for the investigation.” But it appears that important information from this meeting was left out of the Page FISA application.
In footnote 197, the IG noted that “Page’s comment about his lack of a relationship with Manafort was relevant to one of the allegations in the Steele reporting that was relied upon in the Carter Page FISA applications, but information about the August 2016 CHS meeting was not shared with the OI attorneys handling the FISA applications until June 2017.”
It also appears that Pientka had some concerns and advanced warnings regarding the media contacts by Christopher Steele—who produced a dossier on Trump for the Clinton campaign that was critical in the FBI obtaining a FISA warrant—specifically regarding the Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff:
“SSA 1’s notes from a meeting on September 30 contain the following notation: ‘control issues—reports acknowledged in Yahoo News.’ We asked SSA 1 whether he was concerned at the time that there were control issues with Steele. He stated that he was concerned but that he was not sure that Steele was responsible for providing information to Yahoo News. In addition, he said he was focused on Steele’s discussions with the State Department about his work with the FBI,” the report states.
“SSA 1 stated that an important objective of the planned meeting with Steele in early October was to obtain ‘exclusivity’ in Steele’s reporting relationship, meaning that Steele would provide his intelligence related to the election exclusively to the FBI.”
There were further concerns regarding Steele’s credibility that were relayed to Pientka relatively early on that were never transmitted to the FISA court. State Department official Kathleen Kavalec met with Steele in October 2016 and was provided with some information from Steele that she knew to be inaccurate. According to the IG report, this information was relayed directly to Pientka:
“The FBI liaison informed SSA 1 and Case Agent 1 via email on November 18 that Kavalec had met with Steele, she had taken notes of their meeting, the liaison could obtain information from Kavalec about the meeting, and, according to Kavalec, the information from Steele’s reporting about a Russian consulate being located in Miami was inaccurate.”
Additionally, the Department of Justice’s Office of Intelligence (OI) questioned the Crossfire Hurricane team on Oct. 12, 2016—prior to the first FISA application on Trump campaign aide Page—asking the FBI team to “articulate why it deems [Steele’s] reporting to be credible notwithstanding [Steele] did the investigation based on [a] private citizen’s motivation to help [Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party].”
Pientka appeared to personally vouch for Steele to the OI, responding “that: (1) the FBI has had an established relationship with the source since 2013; (2) the source was generating reporting well before the opening of Crossfire Hurricane and the leaks concerning the DNC emails, and therefore this was not a situation where a source was attempting to steer an ongoing investigation; and (3) Steele was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no vested interest in the outcome of the election.”
The IG report also noted that FBI emails made clear that Pientka was fully aware by Jan. 11, 2017, that the investigative firm hired by the DNC was the same firm that had hired Steele to “conduct his election-related research,” and noted, “We found no evidence that this information was shared with OI.”
Horowitz also noted that by “February and March 2017, it was broadly known among FBI officials working on and supervising the investigation, and shared with senior NSD and ODAG officials, that Simpson (who hired Steele) was himself hired first by a candidate during the Republican primaries and then later by someone related to the Democratic Party.”
As Horowitz noted in his report, “Nevertheless, the footnote in Renewal Application Nos. 1, 2, and 3, was not revised to reflect this additional information.”
It appears that Pientka also had direct involvement in the review of the Woods File for the Page FISA application and subsequent renewals. The inspector general report notes that “SSA 1, was responsible for confirming that the Woods File was complete and for double-checking the factual accuracy review to confirm that the file contained appropriate documentation for each of the factual assertions in the FISA application.”
According to the report, Pientka “said he found that each factual assertion was supported by documentation in the Woods File, and he had no concerns with how the Woods Procedures were completed.”
Pientka also told the inspector general, however, that he didn’t personally review the entire document:
“SSA 1 told us that he relied on Case Agent 1 to highlight each relevant fact in the supporting document in the Woods File, and that once he verified that each highlighted fact corresponded to a factual assertion in the application, he would move on to the next fact, without necessarily reviewing the entire document.”
The inspector general report, however, identified “at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to the OI (Office of Intelligence) and failing to flag important issues for discussion.”
On the original Page FISA application, Horowitz noted seven specific errors:
- The FBI omitted information from the FISA application that detailed work that Page had previously done for another U.S. government agency.
- The FBI mischaracterized former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s prior work for the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the FISA application.
- The FBI didn’t inform the FISA Court of certain material concerns regarding a key source that Steele used for his dossier: that Person 1 was a “boaster,” an “egoist,” and “may engage in some embellishment.”
- The FBI used a Sept. 23, 2016, article by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff as corroboration of Steele’s reporting. The FBI failed to inform the FISA Court that Steele was actually the source for Isikoff’s article.
- The FBI failed to provide the FISA Court with a statement by Trump campaign adviser Papadopoulos to a confidential human source (CHS) in September 2016—presumably FBI informant Stefan Halper—in which Papadopoulos denied that anyone from the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia.
- The FBI also omitted a statement from Page denying that he ever met former Trump campaign manager Manafort. This denial was important as Steele claimed that Page was acting as an intermediary to Russia on behalf of Manafort.
- Finally, the FBI “cherry-picked” statements made by Page to an FBI confidential human source that served to support obtaining a FISA on Page, while, at the same time, excluding statements from Page that weren’t supportive of such an action.
All of these errors, along with 10 more identified by the IG report with regard to the three renewals of the FISA on Page, appear to have had at least some direct overlap with Pientka’s work and his oversight, or lack thereof, of the underlying Woods Documents, which were supposed to back up the assertions made in any FISA application and renewals.
Bruce Ohr, who was the highest-ranking career official in the DOJ in 2016, played a crucial role in passing on unfounded allegations against Trump from Steele and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson to the FBI—specifically to Pientka—who was assigned as Ohr’s initial FBI “handler.” Pientka summarized their conversations in FBI FD-302 forms—which were obtained by Judicial Watch and made public in August 2019.
On Nov. 21, 2016, Ohr was introduced to Pientka, the first of his four FBI handlers, during a meeting with FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page—both key players in the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. The next day, on Nov. 22, 2016, Ohr met alone with Pientka and the sequence of 302’s stemming from these ongoing interviews began.
In that Nov. 22 interview, Ohr relayed a large amount of vital information to Pientka—most of which was never relayed by the FBI to the FISA Court. Notably, the FBI had already terminated Steele as a source at the start of November 2016 because of his communications with the media.
Specifically, Ohr told Pientka that Simpson had been hired by “a lawyer who does opposition research.” Simpson’s firm, Fusion GPS, had been hired by law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee in April 2016.
According to the inspector general report, this information was already known to Pientka on Aug. 2, 2016:
“An FBI agent from another FBI field office sent an email to his supervisor stating that he had been contacted by a former CHS who ‘was contacted recently by a colleague who runs an investigative firm. The firm had been hired by two entities (the Democratic National Committee as well as another individual … not name[d]) to explore Donald J. Trump’s longstanding ties to Russian entities.’ On or about August 2, 2016, this information was shared by a CD supervisor with the Section Chief of CD’s Counterintelligence Analysis Section I (Intel Section Chief), who provided it that day to members of the Crossfire Hurricane team (then Section Chief Peter Strzok, SSA 1, and the Supervisory Intel Analyst).”
Ohr, according to the report, also told Pientka of Steele’s bias against Trump during his first interview in November 2016, noting that Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President.” This strong bias on Steele’s part wasn’t relayed to the FISA court.
Ohr told Pientka that he knew “[redacted] reporting on Trump’s ties to Russia were going to the Clinton Campaign, Jon Winer at the U.S. State Department and the FBI.” Ohr also told Pientka that “Simpson and others were talking to Victoria Nuland at the U.S. State Department,” and that “Simpson was passing [redacted] information to many individuals or entities and at times [redacted] would attend meetings with Simpson.”
Ohr also told Pientka about a meeting between Steele and Yahoo News reporter Isikoff, which resulted in a Sept. 23, 2016, article on Page, “U.S. Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Adviser and Kremlin.”
“Simpson and [redacted] could have met with Yahoo or Michael Isikoff jointly, but OHR does not know if they did. OHR provided copies of notes he took after the meeting with [redacted] which are enclosed as attachments,” according to the FBI’s 302 documents.
The redacted name is almost without doubt a reference to Steele.
Isikoff’s article would be used by the FBI in the Page FISA application. The FBI told the FISA court in its application that the FBI “does not believe that Source #1,” later identified as Steele, “directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article.”
Notably, the FBI would cite Isikoff’s article, along with the inaccurate disclaimer, in each of the three subsequent FISA renewals, despite knowing since at least Nov. 22, 2016, via Pientka’s communications with Ohr, that Steele had been the source for Isikoff’s piece.
Around two weeks later, during a Dec. 5, 2016, FBI interview, Ohr told Pientka that his wife, Nellie Ohr, had worked for Fusion GPS from October 2015 to September 2016 and during a Dec. 20 interview, he provided the FBI with a thumb drive containing “the totality of the work Nellie Ohr conducted for Simpson.” Additionally, Bruce Ohr provided the FBI with a dossier on former Trump campaign chairman Manafort titled, “Manafort Chronology” that had been compiled by Nellie Ohr.
Five days later, during a meeting on Dec. 10, 2016, Ohr met with Simpson, who gave him a memory stick that Ohr believed contained the Steele dossier. Ohr then passed the memory stick to Pientka two days later.
Ohr repeatedly stated in congressional testimony that he never vetted any of the information provided by either Steele or Simpson. He simply turned it over or relayed it to the FBI—usually to Pientka. What Ohr didn’t know was that Pientka was transmitting all the information directly to FBI Agent Strzok.
Rep. Mark Meadows: “Was Joe Pientka your go-between in December when you got additional information from either Christopher Steele or Glenn Simpson in getting it to the FBI?”
Bruce Ohr: “Joe Pientka, I believe, was my contact at that time, yeah.”
Rep. Meadows: “You have a meeting, You get information. You immediately go to Joe Pientka, who immediately goes to Peter Strzok. Are you aware of that?”
Mr. Ohr: “No.”
Horowitz, in his testimony before Congress, seemed genuinely surprised at Ohr’s role and the FBI’s ongoing use of him as a conduit to Steele. This was made apparent during questioning that took place during Horowitz’s Dec. 11, 2019, testimony with Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.):
Mr. Horowitz: “So at the time of these events he [Ohr] was an associate deputy attorney general and the head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force working out of the Deputy Attorney General’s office [Sally Yates].”
Sen. Sasse: “The Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force? And that’s connected to election interference by the Russians how?”
Mr. Horowitz: “It is not.”
Sen. Sasse: “What the hell’s he doing here?”
Mr. Horowitz: “That was precisely the concern which we lay out here. He had no role in any of the election interference matters.”
On Jan. 24, 2017, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then-national security adviser to President Donald Trump, was interviewed by both Strzok and Pientka about two conversations that Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in December 2016.
According to court documents from the Flynn case, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.” It was during this interview that Flynn reportedly lied to the FBI.
Details about Flynn’s phone conversation with Kislyak were leaked to the media on Jan. 12, 2017. Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI regarding the conversations with Kislyak. It remains unknown to this day who leaked Flynn’s classified call—a felony violation.
Notably, The Washington Post reported on Jan. 23, 2017, that the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing in Flynn’s actual call with the Russian ambassador.
While the inspector general report doesn’t discuss the case of Flynn in great detail, it details Pientka’s involvement with the defensive briefings made to the Trump campaign in August 2016. Horowitz noted in his report that “we found that SSA 1 [Pientka] was selected to provide the FBI briefings, in part, because Flynn, who was a subject in the ongoing Crossfire Hurricane investigation, would be attending the Trump campaign briefing.”
When asked about this, Pientka told the IG that “one of the reasons for his selection was that ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence, at the time headed by DNI James Clapper] had informed the FBI that one of the two Trump campaign advisors attending the August 17 briefing would be Flynn. He further stated that the briefing provided him ‘the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly have some level of familiarity with [Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview … I would have that to fall back on.'”
When the IG asked Pientka to elaborate on the use of the term “assessment,” Pientka told the IG:
“[Flynn’s] overall mannerisms. That overall mannerisms and then also if there was anything specific to Russia, or anything specific to our investigation that was mentioned by him, or quite frankly we had an … investigation, right. And any of the other two individuals in the room, if they, any kind of admission, or overhear, whatever it was, I was there to record that.”
According to the IG report, Pientka was “the only FBI representative at the ODNI briefing on August 17, 2016, which was attended by Trump, Flynn, and another Trump campaign advisor.”
According to the IG’s report, Pientka drafted an Electronic Communication documenting his participation in the defensive briefing to the Trump campaign and added it to the Crossfire Hurricane investigative file.
“SSA 1 told us that he documented those instances where he was engaged by the attendees, as well as anything related to the FBI or pertinent to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, such as comments about the Russian Federation. SSA 1 said that he also documented information that may not have been relevant at the time he recorded it, but might prove relevant in the future,” the inspector general report states.
Interestingly, Pientka told Horowitz that “he did not memorialize in writing the briefing he participated in of candidate Clinton and her national security advisors because the attendees did not include a subject of an FBI investigation, and because there was nothing from the other briefings that was of investigative value to the Crossfire Hurricane team.”