Rand Paul’s The Case Against Socialism is a must-read for every voter, politician, and student in America.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
What Rush Means To Us, And To Me
Article by Kurt Schlichter in "Townhall":
It’s a tribute to the great Rush Limbaugh that the reaction to his cancer diagnosis by the tens of millions of people he inspired was not to be devastated but to focus and to resolutely offer their thoughts and prayers in his fight. And he will fight – he’ll fight this like he has fought everything and everyone else that tried to take him out over the last third of a century. He is the archetypal conservative brawler, a no-apologies, no-excuses conservative who never submitted, never allowed himself to be domesticated and neutered by the elite. At the same time, he is gracious and a charity juggernaut. We love him for his strength and wit, and the left – to judge by its vicious, hateful glee over the news – has never forgiven him for either.
But then, the glory of Rush is that he doesn’t ask to be forgiven.
Here’s how I learned about Rush. I was back from the Gulf War in mid-1991, out of the Army and staying with my parents for a few weeks before I went to LA to start law school. One day, a guy I grew up with who lived across the street told me, “You gotta hear this Rush guy!”
“What’s a Rush?”
“Rush Limbaugh!”
That’s when this all began for me. Sure, I was conservative already, but I was kind of on my own. Lots of us were – millions of us thought we were the only ones who thought like we did. Back then, being a conservative meant you waited for the National Review and maybe the American Spectator to show up in your mailbox. That was it. That was the whole conservative media. You social media cons are spoiled. We were the conservative diaspora.
But Rush was not interested in submission. He was interested in conservatism, raw and undiluted. And he gathered us together and demonstrated that we were not alone.
For me, Rush was preaching to the choir, but then the choir needs preaching to too. Yet, his most vital function is to create new conservatives out of mushy libs who were that way purely out of habit. I can’t count how many other conservatives I’ve met who were liberal until they heard Rush. The lies the liberals told about him were often the first liberal lies these converts noticed – they tuned in expecting a monster and got a good natured, funny but uncompromising conservative who won millions of people over through the power of the common sense of his message. People wondered that if liberals were lying to them about Rush, what else were they lying about?
My friend Andrew Breitbart, the other great non-governmental conservative visionary of the last 50 years, wrote about how he was converted and inspired by Rush. That’s the importance of Rush to our movement – he generates conservatives out of liberals and moderates, all by talking to them like they are adults.
There has never been anyone like him on radio, and never will be again. But there will be many who were mentored by him whether Rush knew them or not.
People say there would be no Trump without Rush, but it’s more than that. There would be no conservatism without him. Our movement could have been strangled in the cradle, but Rush nurtured and grew it off in what had been the abandoned wasteland of AM radio where the smart set never bothered to venture.
Remember, they hate Rush not for anything he did, but simply for articulating American freedom effectively and without equivocation. They want him to die, literally, because they disagree with what he thinks, so how do you think they feel about you? Again, consider that the next time a Democrat tells you to give up your guns.
He’s Rush.
And though I never met him, he’s been amazingly gracious to me. Every once in a while, my phone will go nuts, and I know the great Rush Limbaugh has read one of my Townhall columns on the air again, and no doubt mispronounced my last name!
Rush, you can pronounce “Schlichter” any way you please. If not for you, I probably would not be a columnist, or an author, or an occasional radio host. Thank you.
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3568779094875723507#editor/target=post;postID=1130160758547416370
When Your Pet Bites You.
You have to love when a Democrat plan comes together. Democrats want open borders, they want the illegals to pour into America. What happens to the Democrats when they lose control?
America dies.
What does thousands of unskilled, uneducated illegals give America?
Antifa Threatens Pelosi’s Challenger: “When the Cameras Aren’t Around, I’m Gonna Fuck You Up”
That chairman, John Dennis, was confronted by Antifa thugs during the cleanup (as was Presler). Before getting to that confrontation, it’s worth noting some of the disgusting conditions they saw.
The disturbing conditions of this San Francisco homeless alley shocked me during the #SanFranciscoCleanup with @ScottPresler. pic.twitter.com/Z5EqP9kZlA
— John Dennis for Congress (@RealJohnDennis) February 3, 2020
Today @ScottPresler and I discovered human poop behind a San Francisco food truck.
— John Dennis for Congress (@RealJohnDennis) February 2, 2020
Just one of many appalling moments during today's #SanFranciscoCleanup.
More videos coming soon. pic.twitter.com/VSbjFGvnw8
This ANTIFA bully thought he could intimidate San Francisco Republicans.
— John Dennis for Congress (@RealJohnDennis) February 3, 2020
Wrong! #SanFranciscoCleanup pic.twitter.com/XaBlUPkm4t
No, I actually want you dead….Because you’re a piece of s**t….Because you’re racist.
The two traded barbs back-and-forth, then finally Antifaman had enough and said:
Bruh, I’m gonna catch you when all the cameras aren’t around, and I’m gonna f**k you up.
Chris Matthews is Not Happy With the Dem Field; ‘Bernie Sanders is Not Going to be President, Okay?’
Bernie will be scrutinized, he says, and once voters “figure out who the guy is,” it’s over.
Trump was asked about Bernie and said, “I think he’s a communist.” Should Bernie win the nomination, the Trump campaign will hammer that message from now through Election Day and probably defeat Bernie by a landslide just as Richard Nixon defeated the far left Sen. George McGovern in 1972.
Matthews gets it. He understands that most Americans won’t be too excited about Bernie’s $16 trillion (not a typo) climate change plan.
Speaking with his colleagues Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on “Morning Joe” yesterday, Matthews said, “What are my thoughts? I’m not happy. I’m not happy with this field. I think they have to find a candidate for president that can beat Trump.”
“I’m looking, I’m still looking,” Matthews barked.
“What’s the problem?”
Matthews continues:
Obvious problems, they’re all problems. Bernie Sanders is not going to be president of the United States, okay? I look back at the ’72 race, I was a young volunteer for the DNC… I’ve got to tell you, it feels a lot like it. A lot of giddiness, a lot of excitement, thrill about this guy.[Matthews is referring to former Sen. George McGovern (D-SD) who lost to President Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. political history.]He excited the party completely, blew away a really good candidate like [then-Sen. Edwin] Muskie, a very good guy, blew him right out of the water because he had some issues.Now analytically, a couple of things have happened. Warren was riding high, I thought she was going to sweep through everything…What happened, she got a lot of scrutiny…All of that stuff got killed… and guess who’s gonna get it now? Bernie’s gonna get it now.Bernie’s gonna ride high and he’s finally gonna get scrutinized about his whole life, his ideology, his whole life. Who did he root for all of his life, who is this guy? It’s not just the nice, good stuff like health care. Why does he say the stuff he says about [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro and people like that…people have got to figure out who the guy is. I think I know because I’ve dealt with these guys all my adult life. They’re usually the guys at the card table at an antiwar rally. There’d be some old guy with some old literature from his socialist party or that, trying to sell it, trying to latch on the antiwar movement. There’s always guys like that…I know him, but I think the country is going to get to know him and I think we’ve got a problem. We’ll see. But, you know, nobody is going to be saying it tonight. They’re gonna be cheering, ‘good ole Bernie.’ I think he’s gonna win big tonight, real big, real big.
Watch the video below.
"I’m not happy with this field. I think they have to find a candidate for president that can beat Trump...
— Francis Brennan (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@FrancisBrennan) February 3, 2020
"I’m still looking." - MSNBC's Chris Mathews pic.twitter.com/TqiJwRuWEV
Rand Paul’s Irrefutable Case...
Rand Paul’s The Case Against Socialism is a must-read for every voter, politician, and student in America.
Bolton now promotes the anti-Trump agenda of Schiff and Pelosi
That reality is at the core of what appeared to frustrate Mr. Bolton and numerous other senior presidential aides during my time working in the West Wing for President Trump.
As a staffer, if you have a policy disagreement with the president, you have two options: You either subordinate your views to his and fulfill his wishes — or you quit. That does not mean you shy away from making your case behind closed doors — and in my experience the president encouraged dissenting views — but once the president makes a decision, it is your job to execute it with the same vigor you would if it had been your idea all along.
It is well known that Mr. Bolton favored a much more adventurous foreign policy than the president, or as many of us who worked with or around him often said, “He basically wants to carpet bomb the planet.” And since the president would not let him, Mr. Bolton has apparently decided to seek retribution by publishing a book that the National Security Council says contains Top Secret information.
You see, for all Mr. Bolton’s many faults and weaknesses, he is no dummy. His colleagues viewed him as shrewd, calculating and deliberate. He picks his spots, carefully. So for those who know him, it is hardly a surprise that he waited until just the right moment to insert himself into the national debate — at a moment of historical significance — to shift the spotlight onto himself in dramatic fashion.
And suddenly, as a result of this self-serving betrayal of the president, Mr. Bolton has magically transitioned from being dismissed or ridiculed by much of the mainstream media, to being placed on a pedestal as an honest broker, rather than the disgruntled former staffer he clearly is.
After all, any reasonable reporting would have to point out that in August 2019, before Mr. Bolton was fired from his post, he said in an interview that combating “corruption” in Ukraine was a “high priority” for the president, while making no mention of any nefarious quid pro quo. In that clip, it sure sounded like Mr. Bolton was in lockstep with the president’s anti-corruption Ukrainian agenda. But now that it is time to sell a book, he has decided to change his mind?
There is a disturbing trend in mainstream media coverage in which aides who undermine the president are glorified, as if there is something patriotic about subverting the agenda of a man democratically elected by the American people. In a typical moment in history, these people would be derided as anti-democratic and dangerous threats to our entire system.
There is a popular Internet meme that even the president has occasionally posted on social media, in which Mr. Trump is staring, stone-faced straight ahead and pointing at the camera, and the caption reads: “In reality they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in the way.”
There is some truth to that.
For all of the president’s many accomplishments in office — and I would contend that he is the first politician in history to be eviscerated by the media for actually fulfilling his promises — his greatest accomplishment of all may be somehow getting his opponents to expose themselves to be — or to turn themselves into — exactly what he says they are.
Throughout this absurd impeachment debacle, members of Congress have largely shown themselves to be the spineless opportunists he told the country they were. The “fake news” media has gotten so outraged at his broadsides — and committed to showing Mr. Trump to be unfit for office — that they continue to lurch from one half-truth or manufactured narrative to the next.
And the Swamp — of which John Bolton has been a decades-long denizen — has sought to sink Mr. Trump’s presidency at every turn. Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating has steadily risen, as he’s focused on methodically implementing policies that actually improve the lives of American citizens, while Democrats have allowed their every waking moment to be consumed by their hatred for Mr. Trump.
But if Mr. Trump’s approach to the job can be summed up in “America First,” Mr. Bolton’s entire career could be summed up in “Bolton First.” And in some ways that is hardly a surprise — we all knew he was a self-promoter. We just never imagined he would also become a promoter of the failed agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. Say it ain’t so, John. Say it ain’t so.
Mila: 'No regrets' for French teen targeted for criticising Islam
She received death threats and has not attended school since.
But Mila has refused to back down, saying in her first television interview that she "wanted to blaspheme".
She has since deactivated her Instagram account.
The post has sparked a huge debate in France over freedom of speech. The country has no national blasphemy laws and has a rigidly secular constitution.
Police initially opened two investigations: the first into whether Mila was guilty of hate speech, and the second into her online attackers. They have since dropped the hate speech case as Mila was expressing a personal opinion on religion and not targeting individuals.
On Tuesday, Interior Minister Christophe Castaner told the National Assembly that Mila and her family were under police protection.
What did Mila say?
Appearing on the Quotidien programme on the TMC channel, Mila apologised for insulting people who practise their religion "in peace" and said she regretted the "vulgarity" of her words and their spread online.But she defended her remarks. "I have absolutely no regrets about what I said, it was really my thought," she told the interviewer.
Mina said her life was "clearly on hold" amid the controversy. She had to leave school because of the threats against her, saying she could have been "burned with acid, hit, stripped naked in public or buried alive".
On Monday, education minister Jean-Michel Blanquer said that authorities were trying to "return her to school peacefully so that she can have a normal life".
How did the controversy start?
The controversy began on 18 January, after Mila did a live broadcast on her Instagram account. After speaking about her sexuality she was called a "dirty lesbian" by a Muslim commenter.In response, Mila posted an attack on Islam. "I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate," she said, before using stronger words to attack Islam.
"I am not racist. You cannot be racist towards a religion. I said what I thought, you're not going to make me regret it."
Critics said her comments were offensive. Some sent her death threats, and others posted her personal information online. The head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, Mohammed Moussaoui, said nothing justified death threats no matter how serious her remarks.
Supporters defended her right to attack Islam, and the hashtag #JeSuisMila (I am Mila) started trending in France. Opponents hit back with the hashtag #JeNeSuisPasMila.
French justice minister Nicole Belloubet waded into the controversy, saying that death threats against the teenager were "unacceptable".
However, Ms Belloubet herself was criticised after arguing that an attack on religion was "an attack on freedom of conscience". French Senator Laurence Rossignol gave Ms Belloubet "0/20 in constitutional law", saying that in France "it is forbidden to insult the followers of a religion but one can insult a religion, its figures, its symbols". Ms Belloubet later said her comments had been "clumsy".
Mila's cause has been embraced by the far right. National Rally leader Marine Le Pen said Mila had "more courage than the entire political class in power for the past 30 years".
In October, French President Emmanuel Macron warned against "stigmatising" Muslims or linking Islam with the fight against terrorism.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51369960
Trump Will Sell Alaska To Russia If We Don’t Impeach Him
If “abuse of power” was not impeachable, Schiff argued, “then a whole range of utterly unacceptable conduct in a president would now be beyond reach.”
“Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election, or decide to move to Mar-A-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war.”
Adam Schiff:
Adam Schiff:
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 3, 2020
If Trump isn't removed he "could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war." pic.twitter.com/VBzkonqpmH
A vote on the president’s acquittal is now expected to come on Wednesday, exonerating the president of the three-and-a-half year impeachment effort launched by the Democrats even before Trump took office in 2017.
House Democrats launched an impeachment probe in September after an anonymous whistleblower complained that Trump was using the power of the Oval Office to extract concessions from foreign leaders, a common practice among American presidents.
The whistleblower complaint however, alleged Trump was conspiring with the Ukrainian president to interfere in the next election in exchange for nearly $400 million in military aid that was ultimately released to the Ukrainian government despite no investigations that Democrats have charged Trump with demanding.
Democrats however, rushed impeachment proceedings in the House to vote on two articles of impeachment the week of Christmas. By a partisan vote, the House voted to send two articles to the Senate accusing Trump of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” with two Democrats joining Republicans united in opposition and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard voting present.
Why Socialism Often Leads to Tyranny
Why Socialism Often Leads to Tyranny
Socialism and communism lead to underperforming economies and the loss of individual opportunity for generations.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that communism leads to tyranny. Mention the countries North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung’s China, East Germany, and Venezuela, and most people immediately think of an oppressed population with almost no economic opportunity and no political freedom. The words communist dictatorship roll off the tongue like the two words have gone together forever. In fact, in an extreme irony, communism, ostensibly the most egalitarian form of government, in two cases led to the least egalitarian form of government: royalty or the rule of one family over time. The Kim family in North Korea and the Castros in Cuba have been ruling their countries like the kings and queens of old for some time.
A Government That Is Giving You Things Can Take Them Away
A government that controls everything can quash dissent by changing the economic situation of anyone who is pointing out their defects.
If you persisted in demanding your right not to work, you wound up in the gulag, so thank God you live in a free enterprise, democratic society.
Socialism and Communism Are Bad Economics That Must be Implemented by Government Force
Local versus National Police
Socialism Can Lead to Communism
Most Politicians Will Use the Power at Their Disposal to Protect Their Interests
What a Healthy Society Looks Like
Why Impeachment Failed
Unless more incriminating evidence emerges to dramatically alter public perception, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is effectively over.
It’s comforting, no doubt, to believe that Trump has survived this entire debacle because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president did. But while partisanship might be corrosive, it’s also the norm. In truth, Trump, often because of his own actions, has likely engendered less loyalty than the average president, not more.
It’s difficult to recall a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama’s way, which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to the next. In 1998, not a single Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton, who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons, despite the GOP’s case being methodical and incriminating. Attempting to impeach a president for lying under oath to a federal grand jury in a sexual-harassment case in an effort to obstruct justice was, as Alan Dershowitz and many others argued, “sexual McCarthyism.” Few Democrats, though, claimed Clinton was innocent, because no one could credibly offer that defense; they merely reasoned that the punishment was too severe for what amounted to a piddling crime.
The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It’s never happened in American history — unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon — and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.
And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion — a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial — the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.
You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.
Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a mess. House Dems and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations, declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history. (I’m not exaggerating.) When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always the worst thing ever.
Even if Trump’s actions had risen to the level of removal, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were quite possibly the worst possible messengers to make the case. These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors; they’re the politicians you pick to rile up your base.
Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks, the man reeks of partisanship. Not only because he’s been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion, but because he personally played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward.
Lots of Americans rightly believe that a large faction of Democrats has been looking to impeach the president from Day One. Nadler happened to be someone who was actually caught scheming to do it.
Even then, instead of spending the appropriate time building a solid case, subpoenaing all the “vital” witnesses, and laying out a timeline, House Democrats, by their own admission, rushed forward. They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election.
That wouldn’t have been a big deal if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse, by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks. She did so despite having zero standing to dictate the terms of the trial, no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them, and no political leverage. In the end, she got nothing from Mitch McConnell for her trouble.
Meanwhile, Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on the specific criminal offenses of “bribery” and “extortion” — poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized “quid pro quo” didn’t play as well with the public. If, as seems likely, it’s true that Americans are more familiar with the concepts of “bribery” and “extortion” than with the concept of a “quid pro quo,” that just means they have clearer expectations regarding the evidence needed to substantiate those accusations. And the Democrats didn’t have such evidence. They didn’t even bother including the former “crimes” — no, you don’t need a violation of criminal law to impeach, but the word was incessantly used by House Dems anyway — in their open-ended articles of impeachment, which were expressly written to compel Senate Republicans to conduct an investigation for them.
The House had no right to demand that, and the Senate had no reason to comply. So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment, Democrats began dropping one “bombshell” leak after the next — the same strategy they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings — to try and drag out the spectacle and maximize the political damage. It didn’t work.
Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump’s call was unbecoming and, in parts, inappropriate, even if it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Those who did, such as Alexander and Pat Toomey, had a better case to make in dismissing the need for any witnesses. Trump’s actions, though not ethically “perfect,” fall under the bailiwick of presidential power. Voters can decide his fate soon enough.
Democrats, though, keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules. The Constitution, a document that is under attack by the very people claiming to want to save it from the president, worked exactly as it should in this case. The House is free to subpoena all the “vital” witnesses Republicans have supposedly ignored, and then send a new batch of impeachment articles. Impeachment isn’t tantamount to a “coup,” any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt.
Pretending that Republicans are motivated by historically unique strains of partisanship, and acting like democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you didn’t get your way, though, is nothing but histrionics.
Why Are Liberals Such Hypocrites?
Corruption Coverup – Nadler Schedules FBI Oversight Hearing With Chris Wray on Same Day as Impeachment Vote
FBI Director Christopher Wray has not been scheduled to face any questioning or public scrutiny by any legislative oversight body since the Inspector General report highlighted gross corruption and FBI misconduct in the December 9th, 2019, FISA report.
Additionally, the DOJ/FBI response to the demands of the FISC were also extended to February 5th. The corrupt institutions, and the administrative state that surrounds them, are working overtime to avoid any exposure and national discussion about misconduct that should alarm everyone. Why? Because they targeted Donald Trump… So, bury it.
Remember, the questions within this hearing are important. The DOJ/FBI has admitted they need to sequester all evidence in all cases that stemmed from the Carter Page Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant; and they are hunting for that information.
This is a hot mess. Remember, IG Horowitz said he only found evidence of a FISA warrant against Carter Page, no other Trump campaign or Trump administration official was investigated using a FISA application. That statement is a little more important now.
As I go back through my notes seeing if I can identify the downstream consequences impacted by a rather stunning sequestration effort, I find myself wondering if the HJC case(s) for 6(e) material and Don McGahn testimony might even be part of the pull-back material as a derivative of the special counsel probe’ use of the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant. After all, there had to be an investigative reason for Mueller to want the renewal on June 29, 2017, long after Carter Page was gone from the Trump orbit.
Remember, the special counsel team used some form of pre-existing warrant authority to capture all of the Trump transition team emails and communication from the GSA, and then lied about it to the Trump White House. Perhaps National Security Letters (NSL’s).
The DOJ/FBI previously agreed to “sequester” all information and evidence received as an outcome of all four FISA warrants issued against Carter Page. Meaning, all material, in any court proceeding or subsequent secondary warrant on another target, application, filing, motion, prosecution or downstream use of the information gathered and obtained.
The DOJ and FBI stated they will now assemble all materials, from any location, that stemmed from the Carter Page FISA warrants. In essence, the FBI will now look and retrieve any evidence that stemmed as an outcome of the Carter Page FISA warrant. Some of this material *may* (perhaps likely) will be in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.
[ie. a proverbial search for the fruit of a poisonous tree. Where is it?]
Once the sequestration has taken place, the DOJ will then be able to determine to the court what collateral impacts they have identified.
Worth noting in the second paragraph of the original order: “pending further review of the OIG report and the outcome of any investigations or litigation.” This was a statement made by the DOJ in response to the FISC. It is possible the ongoing investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham is part of this encompassing statement.
The second page of the order by Judge Boasberg is essentially him relaying the law surrounding FISA applications; warning the DOJ that false material submissions -which the DOJ has just admitted- are illegal; and Boasberg wanting to know answers to the same questions many of us have.
Essentially, Judge Boasberg is asking: what did the FBI do with the Title-1 surveillance warrant they received from the court? What material did they collect? Was that material then used in other proceedings and: “disseminated to DOJ prosecutors and other persons outside the FBI”?
The presiding fisa judge also wants to know what the DOJ is doing. Explain what “further review of the OIG report” means? Inform the court what “related investigations and litigation” pertains to, etc. The DOJ/FBI now have until February 5th to respond: