Thursday, November 18, 2021

‘Criminal Justice Reform’ Is Leftist Code for Punishing Conservatives

If you’re politically on the Right in America, you can no longer count on equal justice under the law.


I have often heard folk tales about how the Left used to be skeptical of state power. 

To a small extent, it still is. But only when the person in the defendant’s chair isn’t considered a political enemy. 

After quite clearly acting in self-defense, Kyle Rittenhouse has been dragged through a sham trial. A regular kangaroo court has been in session in Kenosha County, Wisconsin for weeks. The ringleader of the circus is a state prosecutor called Thomas Binger, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the character Donkey from the “Shrek” films, and perhaps luckily for Rittenhouse, has a lower IQ. 

He is, however, the archetype of a greasy lawyer. It’s as if he was booked for the gig by Central Casting. 

After opening his cross examination of Rittenhouse with a line of questioning about his post-arrest silence, Binger nearly blew the case. A criminal defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to silence, and implying guilt from that silence is, in layman’s terms, a big no-no. Hell, I dropped out of law school, and even I know that. 

Binger knows that, too. He’s an experienced prosecutor. That fact wasn’t lost on Judge Bruce Schroeder, who stopped the trial to loudly admonish Binger for intentionally skirting ethical guidelines. 

Later the same day, Binger attempted a line of questioning on a subject that had been ruled out-of-bounds before the trial began. Again Schroeder paused the trial for a tirade against Binger, and for a brief moment, became so angry that another homicide in Kenosha seemed imminent. 

On and on, this type of behavior continued. For Binger, jailing Rittenhouse seemed downright personal. 

Meanwhile, the Left cheered. 

CNN’s chief Zoom masturbator and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin suggested that everyone involved with the trial was racist, wondering what the outcome would be “if the defendant were a Black seventeen year old from another state who killed two people with an illegal assault weapon?” (Kenosha, it should be noted, is 20 minutes from Rittenhouse’s home in Antioch, Illinois. His father and several other relatives live in Kenosha). 

And what about that “illegal assault rifle?” 

Binger argued for the entire trial that Rittenhouse was in illegal possession of a firearm on August 25, 2020, an extension of the left-wing punditry’s sensational assertion. That isn’t remotely true, however. There is no law in Wisconsin barring 17-year-olds from carrying rifles, despite what CNN’s legal “experts” and Kenosha’s prosecutors may wish were the case. The charge shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. It was dropped before closing arguments on Friday. 

But the Left kept cheering. 

Judge Schroeder was, at times, openly skeptical of the prosecution. That is supposed to be the norm. The state bears the burden of proof that the defendant is guilty. As Rittenhouse sat in that courtroom, he was presumed innocent of any crime. 

Dean Strang, the attorney for Steven Avery of “Making a Murderer” fame, eloquently noted that the state is supposed to start each prosecution swimming upstream against the current that is the presumption of innocence. (Incidentally, Avery’s trial is another infamous Wisconsin criminal justice railroading). 

But Schroeder’s skepticism of the state was totally unacceptable to the Left. 

“Judge Schroeder has proven himself to be both incompetent and blatantly biased,” Independent columnist Ahmed Baba said

Baba is not a lawyer, and neither am I. But I found Schroeder to be quite competent, every now and then pausing to give both parties a folksy lesson in Wisconsin law, citing decades-old case law from memory. 

The Rittenhouse trial has done wonders to expose the Left’s true agenda for what it calls “criminal justice reform.” 

Left-wing activist groups do everything in their power to keep illegal aliens from deportation—even ones who have committed other crimes on American soil in addition to crossing the border illegally in the first place. 

They want to end bail completely, even for violent alleged criminals. Some groups exist solely to pay the bail of those violent alleged criminals. 

That “reformist” ideal played out exactly how one might expect in 2019, when the St. Louis Bail Project, a left-wing nonprofit, paid $5,000 to bail out an accused domestic abuser named Samuel Lee Scott. Scott immediately returned home and murdered his wife

The Left wants to end mandatory minimum sentences, the death penalty, and other sentencing practices that are meant to deter crime. 

In some cities, left-wing prosecutors have already stopped prosecuting property crimes such as shoplifting. That policy is in effect in San Francisco. Walgreens has already closed 22 stores in the city. Viral videos show San Francisco’s thieves casually walking into stores and wiping the shelves clean, without a worry in the world. 

The same left-wingers defend lawless rioters in our streets. Binger himself did it during the Rittenhouse trial. 

He called Gaige Grosskreutz, a rioter (and as some have noted, the second-place finalist in Kenosha’s 2020 quick-draw competition) who had his bicep vaporized after pulling a gun on Rittenhouse, a “hero.” Unlike Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz was actually in illegal possession of a firearm that night. He is also a convicted felon with a long rap sheet. 

It couldn’t be clearer. But for its political allies, the Left doesn’t care about “criminal justice reform.” It wants its dangerous, lawless thugs walking the streets with impunity, but if your politics lean to the right of Stalin, it wants to throw the book at you—even while you’re defending yourself from its dangerous, lawless thugs. 

The rot pervades all the way up to the top of the Department of Injustice. 

While Rittenhouse sat in court, Steve Bannon was charged with and booked for contempt of Congress after ignoring a subpoena from the “January 6th Commission,” which is investigating the events of that day. Never mind that Congress isn’t a law enforcement body, and its investigative powers—to the extent it has them—are only implied in the Constitution. 

And while we’re on the subject of January 6, what about those mostly peaceful protestors rotting in D.C. jails, held without bail for such crimes as “parading” in the Capitol, trespassing, or the bogus charge of obstructing a congressional proceeding, which had never been levied against any American citizen before January 6? Where is the chorus of “criminal justice reform” nitwits on those cases? 

By the way, former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress In 2012. So was former IRS official Lois Lerner, a few years later. Both were officials of the Obama Administration. Neither was prosecuted by the Justice Department.  

It couldn’t be clearer. If you’re politically on the Right in America, you can no longer count on equal justice under the law. If you’re on the Left, you can count on politicians, nonprofits, and the criminal justice system itself to do everything in its power to keep you out of jail. 

With that, I rest my case. 


X22, James Red Pills America, and more-Nov 18


 

Good line up tonight, folks! .


Can the FBI Be Salvaged? ~ VDH

For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be moved far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.


The Washington, D.C.-based Federal Bureau of Investigation has lost all credibility as a disinterested investigatory agency. Now we learn from a whistleblower that the agency was allegedly investigating moms and dads worried about the teaching of critical race theory in their kids’ schools.

In truth, since 2015, the FBI has been constantly in the news—and mostly in a negative and constitutionally disturbing light.

The fired former Director James Comey injected himself into the 2016 political race by constantly editorializing on his ongoing investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton’s email leaks. In a bizarre twist, the public learned later that Comey had allowed Hillary Clinton’s own private computer contractor, CrowdStrike, to run the investigation of the hack. The private firm was allowed to keep possession of pertinent hard drives central to the investigation. How odd that CrowdStrike’s point man was Shawn Henry, a former high-ranking FBI employee.

During the Robert Mueller special investigation, the FBI implausibly claimed it had no idea how requested information on FBI cell phones had mysteriously disappeared.

It was also under Comey’s directorship that the FBI submitted inaccurate requests for warrants to a FISA court. Elements of one affidavit to surveil Trump supporter Carter Page were forged by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who later pleaded guilty to a felony.

The FBI hired the disreputable ex-British spy Christopher Steele as a contractor, while he was peddling his fantasy—the Clinton-bought dossier—to Obama government officials and the media.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker was reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. He allegedly conducted prominent meetings both with media outlets that later leaked lurid tales from the Steele dossier. He also met repeatedly with the now-indicted Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussman.

Comey himself, through third-party intermediaries, leaked to the media his own confidential memos detailing private meetings with President Trump. His assurances both to Congress and to Trump that the president was not the current subject of FBI investigations were either misleading or outright lies.

In sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey on some 245 occasions claimed he could not remember or had no knowledge of key elements of his own “Russian collusion” investigation.

Comey’s replacement, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, was fired for leaking sensitive information to the media. He then lied on at least three occasions about his role to federal attorneys and his own FBI investigators.

McCabe is now a paid CNN consultant who often has offered misleading information on the Russian collusion hoax that he helped promulgate.

Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a 22-month, $40 million wild goose chase after some mythical “Russian Collusion” plot. When called before Congress, Mueller claimed he had little or no knowledge about Fusion GPS or the Steele Dossier, the twin sources that birthed the entire collusion hoax.

FBI lawyer Lisa Page was removed from Mueller’s investigation, along with her paramour FBI investigator Peter Strzok. Both misused FBI communications, revealing their pro-Clinton biases during their investigations of “Russian collusion,” while hiding their own unprofessional relationship.

Mueller himself staggered their firings and delayed explanations about why they were let go from his investigation team.

When the FBI arrested pro-Trump activist Roger Stone, it did so with a SWAT team—to the tipped-off and lurking CNN reporters.

The FBI repeated such politicized performance art recently when they stormed the home of Project Veritas director James O’Keefe. The agency confiscated his electronic devices on the grounds that he had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly lurid missing diary of Joe Biden’s daughter. The FBI—an apparent retrieval service of misplaced Biden family embarrassments—also did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.

O’Keefe was accosted in the pre-morning hours by a crowd of FBI agents, wielding a battering ram, who pushed him out of his home in his underwear.

The time and location of the FBI raid, as in the Stone case, were leaked to the media that cheered the raid shortly after it was conducted. A federal judge recently stopped the FBI’s ongoing monitoring of O’Keefe’s communications.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently detailed other FBI lapses such as downplaying evidence that former Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was a known and chronic molester of teenage gymnasts. The agency also extended its witch hunt against the innocent researcher wrongly accused of involvement in the anthrax attacks of 2001.

One could add to such misadventures the mysterious leadership roles of at least 12 FBI informants in the harebrained kidnapping scheme of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. We can also cite the agency’s inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation’s heartland—perhaps Kansas—far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.


Don’t Worship an FBI That Took the Steele Dossier Seriously

Don't Worship an FBI That Took the Steele Dossier Seriously

Why trust an agency that conceals information from judges but prosecutes us for lying to it?

jamescomey_1161x653

(Alex Edelman/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens now says he was wrong to defend James Comey when then-President Donald Trump fired Comey as director of the FBI amid the federal investigation into alleged Russian influence on Trump's 2020 presidential campaign.

In 2017, when Trump fired Comey, Stephens saw it as proof that the president was trying to obstruct the investigation against him. "When the president calls news 'fake' or a story 'phony,'" Stephen wrote, "you know the truth quotient is likely to be high. And, again, you know he knows you know it."

But revelations about the FBI's poor handling of the investigation, as well as a new federal arrest related to the sourcing of the unsubstantiated Steele Dossier, have Stephens rethinking what he thought he knew.

And Stephens is not the only one apologizing for getting the story wrong. Some media outlets, including The Washington Post, have had to issue corrections and removed inaccurate reporting about the infamous Steele Dossier, which attempted to show corrupt ties between Trump and the Russian government that both left him open to potential blackmail and threatened national security.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice charged Igor Danchenko with lying to the FBI. He allegedly covered up the fact that he was the source of some of the information in the Steele Dossier and attempted to conceal the fact that some of the information actually came from Democratic Party sources, rather than Russian ones. The Washington Post, by contrast, reported in 2017 and 2019 that a Belaurisan American businessman named Sergei Millian was a source for the Steele Dossier and was behind the claim that the Russians had video of Trump getting golden showers from prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. The Post has now updated that reporting online, including editor's notes explaining the changes and why they made them.

Stephens notes that the media's handling of the Steele Dossier is itself a scandal, but he's more focused on how FBI agents misled the overseeing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court when they filed warrant applications to wiretap Carter Page and downplayed and omitted information that might have caused the FISA judges to question or even reject the warrants. The feds were investigating whether Page might have been compromised as a foreign policy aide to Trump's campaign with ties to Russia through gas and oil consulting work. Page's name appeared repeatedly in the Steele Dossier.

Thanks to an internal audit of the FBI's operations, we've since learned that the agency regularly screws up warrant applications to secretly wiretap or surveil American targets. This is a big deal because the secrecy of the FISA Court means there's no outside review or oversight. The FISA Court's job is to make sure that the FBI is not violating the rights of Americans when agents snoop on them; when the FBI is not properly thorough in vetting the information it's using for surveillance, the FISA Court might not even know it.

Stephens correctly identifies these and other endemic problems within the FBI:

Of such dross was spun years of high-level federal investigations, ponderous congressional hearings, pompous Adam Schiff soliloquies, and nonstop public furor. But none of that would likely have happened if the F.B.I. had treated the dossier as the garbage that it was, while stressing the ways in which Russia had sought to influence the election on Trump's behalf, or the ways in which the Trump campaign (particularly through its onetime manager, Paul Manafort) was vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Instead, Comey used it as a political weapon by privately briefing President-elect Trump about it, despite ample warnings about the dossier's credibility. In doing so, Comey made the existence of the "salacious and unverified" dossier news in its own right.

One irony here is that some media outlets were initially correct to be skeptical of the Steele Dossier. For example, CNN only reported on its existence at first, leaving Buzzfeed to publish the full contents in 2017. Many media ethicists at the time were openly skeptical of the dossier's contents and critical of BuzzFeed for publishing it. Reason Editor at Large Nick Gillespie bluntly called the dossier "horseshit," adding, "If you've ever wondered why the news media is treated with derision and distrust, today is your lucky day."

Unfortunately, many people's political opinions about Trump shaped their opinions about the FBI and the Steele Dossier itself. As Stephens notes, it was absolutely correct for the FBI to investigate the allegations against Trump's campaign and to look for the possibility of Russian meddling in the election. But the credibility of the investigation changed entirely when the FBI concealed information that suggested there might not have been a fire behind the smoke.

This is a consistent problem for the FBI and a reminder, as Stephens observes, that the agency has a history of not being trustworthy. It's also a reminder that the bizarre faith that Trump's critics placed in Comey was entirely misguided.

You won't find many fans of Trump, nor fans of Comey and the FBI, here at Reason. As Reason has reported, the problems within the FBI long predate Trump. And even the new charges against Danchenko look shaky under scrutiny. After all, he has been charged only with five instances of lying to the FBI. He has not been accused of any other misdeed. The FBI often deploys such charges when it can't prove an underlying crime, an approach that raises big civil rights problems. Funny enough, that is exactly what happened to Michael Flynn, who was charged not with corruption or treason, but with lying to the FBI about his discussions with a Russian diplomat.

It wasn't Danchenko who used the unverified Steele Dossier as evidence to support the secret wiretap of Carter Page. That was the FBI, whose agents knew the dossier was suspect and still used it anyway.


America at the Intersection of Woke and Incompetent

We may have never had such a poisonous combination of partisanship and incompetence at the highest levels of government as we do today.


For as long as most of us have been alive, there have been declarations that America’s best days are behind us and that we are in a slow, steady decline. Against this backdrop, there is a growing sentiment that our present leadership in Washington is something altogether different, and worse. 

We are still getting familiar levels of government waste and inefficiency, but along with those come seemingly unprecedented levels of radicalism and incompetence. This noxious combination was on full display with the recent Senate testimony of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

Washington is filthy with dogmatic bureaucrats, but Mayorkas stands out. He is willing to parrot the most absurd and provably false statements, such as his repeated insistence that the border is closed. When called before Congress, he defends this administration’s indefensible border policies with shameless diversions and obfuscation. 

At the heart of this administration’s border policy is a zealous adherence to far-Left ideology that flies in the face of common sense and traditional American principles. When Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked if the border is more under control now than during the Trump years, Mayorkas replied, “We have more control [of the border] that is consistent with our values as a nation.” 

This was a reference to the White House’s favorite talking point that Trump was “cruel” by instituting a zero-tolerance policy that temporarily separated parents from their children. But in its attempt to be all things anti-Trump at the border, this administration has empowered ruthless human trafficking cartels, enabled greater quantities of fentanyl and other illicit drugs to be brought into the country, and allowed untold numbers of children to be sexually assaulted as they are stockpiled into overcrowded detention centers. Isn’t that cruel? In what way is any of that consistent with our values as a nation?

Mayorkas also agreed that the nation was “on the right track” with its immigration policy now and that he gives himself a grade of A in his performance “for effort and investment in mission and support of our workforce.” This is more than simple partisanship; it is delusional. Anyone who has seen the Haitian migrant crisis in Del Rio or the overcrowding at the Donna detention center and then declares the policy to be on the right track is not fit to serve in a position of such responsibility. 

Mayorkas’ record of supporting his workforce is also deficient. His refusal to defend the mounted border agents who were falsely accused of whipping Haitian migrants was disgraceful. He instead deferred to the Biden White House’s narrative of racial demagoguery, all evidence to the contrary. 

While discussing the widely unpopular idea of the Justice Department paying foreign nationals separated under zero-tolerance up to $450,000 per person, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked if such payments would result in more or less illegal immigration. Mayorkas replied that he did not think such payments would be a “pull factor” to draw more border crossers. The anti-borders mindset is so divorced from reality that its disciples actually believe the lure of almost a half-million dollars would not incentivize destitute migrants to seek entry into the United States. 

Partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing if backed with competence. FDR was firmly on the Left, but he led the nation to eventual victory in World War II. Ronald Reagan was an unapologetic conservative, but revived America’s morale and drove the Soviet Union to its collapse. 

On the existential issue of border security, the Biden Administration has proved as incompetent as it is partisan. Under questioning from Senator Graham about the 1.7 million foreign nationals who have illegally entered the country this year, Mayorkas could not account for 230,000 of them. There is a group of recent illegal aliens in our country larger than the population of Spokane, Washington, and our DHS has no idea where they are.   

When asked about our military’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, Mayorkas claimed “well over 99 percent” of Afghans who boarded U.S. planes were vetted before or during the flights. After being pressed to confirm that dubious claim, Mayorkas backtracked and said “I can’t speak to that.” 

On the Biden policy of catch-and-release, Mayorkas claimed that “the great majority” of those released show up for their immigration court hearings. After Cruz produced a report showing that only 13 percent show up, Mayorkas gave irrelevant data and said he needed to verify his numbers later. Why doesn’t the head of DHS have such data memorized and ready to discuss? 

America may have never had such a poisonous combination of partisanship and incompetence at the highest levels of government as it does today. How the American people react will determine whether this is a shameful aberration or a preview of our future. 


DoJ Inspector General: Justice Dept Must Address Concerns About Politicalization

DoJ Inspector General: 

Justice Dept Must Address Concerns About Politicization

by Frank Salvato – USSA News

In a rare act of honest self-examination, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, issued a ruling stating the department must address deepening concerns that it’s not insulated from political influence.

A report issued by Horowitz’s office determined the DoJ failed to follow policies and procedures designed to protect it from being perceived as politicized or that it is partially applying the law. Primary examples cited by the Inspector General included the investigation of Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election and in leaks to the media.

“Numerous national events in the past year have crystalized the urgency for the department to address this challenge in a meaningful way,” he wrote, including the discovery that the DoJ under the Trump administration obtained communications to and from members of Congress and accusations that protesters were cleared from Lafayette Square in Washington on June 1, 2020, for political purposes.

Such events “have all raised questions about the department’s objectivity and impartiality” and “negatively impacted the perception of the department as a fair administrator of justice,” Horowitz said.

Why This Is Important

The politicization of the Justice Department started long ago but kicked into the high gear of disingenuousness during the Clinton administration. It was then that career loyalists to the Democrat Party were placed in positions with upward mobility at the DoJ.

In instance after instance, the country has witnessed criminal acts being executed by the elected class – and most often to the greatest degree Democrats, and specifically those connected to the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens – only to go unpunished or slow-walked through the investigative process to a point of non sequitur.

A perfect example of the obstruction executed by a well-placed operative in the DoJ came early on the commission of the most significant case of campaign finance fraud in American history. This happened during Hillary Clinton’s initial run for the US Senate.

An investigation was started, but it was stonewalled and eventually dropped without even a semblance of honest investigation. The entire operation was chronicled in a new media investigation titled, The Fraudulent Senator. It’s well worth the time.

In instance after instance during the Obama administration, we saw the politicization of the DoJ more blatantly emerge. Then, during the Trump administration, under an Attorney General who was supposed to be a reformer, we saw the most egregious execution of political persecution in American history.

From the Trump-Russia collusion false-flag operation to facilitating information to the press to bolster unwarranted impeachments against the President, to the stormtrooper-styled handling of the January 6th protesters that remains to this day, the DoJ has openly championed the Democrat Party and has done so in a fashion that would make Mussolini Fascists envious.

The Department of Justice – from top to bottom – and the US State Department exist as the chief agencies of the Deep States bureaucracy that routinely usurp their authority under the US Constitution. They look for workarounds to constitutionality and their power limitations on a regular basis and, in doing so, have ceased serving the American people.

Make no mistake. The Deep State bureaucracy serves only its political and globalist masters. The American people have no place in their requirements of service. And that’s not the country our Framers set up for us.

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

– John Adams



Rittenhouse judge bans MSNBC from courtroom after person accused of trailing jury bus

 



Article in Fox News by Danielle Wallace

 

Rittenhouse judge bans MSNBC from courtroom after person accused of trailing jury bus

Judge Bruce Schroeder briefly addressed incident under investigation by Kenosha police

 

The Wisconsin judge presiding over the case against Kyle Rittenhouse on Thursday banned staff from MSNBC or NBC News from entering the Kenosha courthouse for the remainder of the trial. 

In a brief statement before the court Thursday, Judge Bruce Schroeder addressed an incident in which a person who identified himself as an employee for MSNBC allegedly followed a sealed bus with blocked out windows as it left the courthouse to transport jurors to an undisclosed location.

"I have instructed that no one from MSNBC news will be permitted in this building for the duration of this trial," Schroeder said. "This is a very serious matter and I don’t know what the ultimate truth of it is, but absolutely it would go without much thinking that someone who is following the jury bus – that is an extremely serious matter and will be referred to the proper authorities for further action."

The man spotted following the bus identified himself as James J. Morrison – and told investigators he was instructed to follow the vehicle, Schroeder added. The judge said Morrison claimed to be working under the supervision of a producer based in New York.

The Kenosha Police Department said in a tweet Thursday, "Last night a person who is alleging to be affiliated with a national media outlet was briefly taken into custody and issued several traffic related citations. Police suspect this person was trying to photograph jurors."

"This incident is being investigated much further," police added. "There was no breach of security regarding the jury, nor were there any photographs obtained. This investigation remains active and open, no further information." 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/rittenhouse-judge-bars-msnbc-from-courtroom-trailing-jury-bus 


 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


After Targeting Parents, FBI Attempts Damage Control and Makes Things Worse

After Targeting Parents, 

FBI Attempts Damage Control and Makes Things Worse

After Targeting Parents, FBI Attempts Damage Control and Makes Things Worse

News broke Tuesday that the FBI put threat tags on parents protesting at school board meetings. The information was exposed by a whistleblower, who brought a memo detailing the tagging to members of Congress. From Spencer's reporting

A letter from House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) calling out Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland outlines the documents turned over by the whistleblower and demands answers from the DOJ about a new "threat tag" being used to track parents.

"The email... referenced your October 4 directive to the FBI to address school board threats and notified FBI personnel about a new "threat tag" created by the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions," writes Jordan. "The email directed FBI personnel to apply this new threat tag to all 'investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrations, board members, teachers, and staff.'"

In an effort to do damage control, the FBI released a statement arguing the practice is standard and compared parents to drug dealers and human traffickers. 

"A tag is merely a statistical tool to track information and for review and reporting. The creation of a threat tag in no way changes the long-standing requirements for opening an investigation," the FBI released in a statement. "Nor does it represent in a shift in how the FBI prioritizes threats. The FBI has used tags to track everything from drug trafficking to human trafficking." 

Meanwhile, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are calling for Attorney General Merrick Garland to return for testimony after he claimed the FBI was not being used to directly target parents. 


The Curious DC Judicial Moves Continue – Page v Comey Case Reassigned, With Even Sketchier FISA Court Background



Yesterday, we noted the curiously random set of coincidences taking place amid an internecine DC judicial system {GO DEEP}.  The network of DC relationships, specifically judges, connected to prior Main Justice DOJ, FBI and FISA Court activity could not be as random as the process defenders would claim.

The latest revelation came from the “random” civil case assignment of Carter Page -v- James Comey.  The case was reassigned to Judge James Boasberg, who held a major conflict of interest in the specifics of the Carter Page lawsuit against James Comey {Again, Go Deep}.

Today, perhaps partly in response to the sunlight provided by the extensive background; or perhaps related to the reality that Boasberg could not possibly sit as the judge in the lawsuit; the Carter Page case was again reassigned.  However, this time it is not the reassignment that draws attention, it is the reassigner, the Chairman of the Case Calendar and Case Management Committee, Rudolph Contreras:

As we can see, the civil case has been reassigned from Judge James Boasberg to Judge Timothy J Kelly, that’s good.

There was no way for Boasberg to sit as the judge in this case given his connections and rulings on prior cases like the (1) James Comey memos, the (2) case against Kevin Clinesmith; and (3), the fact that Boasberg was a FISA court judge, and he personally approved the June 29, 2017, FISA warrant against Carter Page – which was constructed by fraudulent manipulation of the underlying affidavits.   There are massive conflicts for Boasberg in all aspects of the Carter Page civil suit against James Comey.

However, it is also interesting to see the name Rudolph Contreras appear again. The DC judicial system is getting very interesting with all of the sunlight upon it.  Specifically, in this instance, the role of the FISA court in the controversial Fourth Branch of Government {Go Deep} is starting to make a lot more sense.

You may remember, on November 30th, 2017, Mike Flynn signed a guilty plea; ostensibly admitting lying to special counsel investigators.  Flynn took this plea because his son was being threatened for prosecution by the Weissmann-Mueller team.  The 2017 plea was accepted by Judge Rudolph Contreras; who was/is also a FISA court judge.

The public finds out about the Flynn plea the following day, December 1st, 2017.   Immediately after that guilty plea, literally 24 hours later, we first learn of Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr.   All three people connected to the background of the Trump-Russia investigation were removed from their official duties and suspended inside the FBI and Main Justice.

Lisa Page was the legal liaison assigned to FBI Director Andrew McCabe by the DOJ National Security Division.  Peter Strzok was the lead FBI Counterintelligence Division agent assigned to the Trump-Russia investigation (aka Crossfire Hurricane); and Bruce Ohr was the #4 person in Main Justice inside the DOJ National Security Division.

A few days later, on December 3rd and 4th, the first batch of text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were released to the public showing an extensive background discussion about the targeting of Donald Trump and the inner-workings within the FBI and DOJ that related to their corrupt investigation.

Two days after the text messages were released, on December 7, 2017, Judge Contreras “was recused” from the Michael Flynn case without explanation:

(Reuters Article Link)

The Contreras recusal always seemed sketchy. The key question was: If the conflict existed on December 7th, wouldn’t that same conflict have existed on November 30th, 2017 when the plea was accepted?

What we did not know in December of 2017 was that inside the text messages of Lisa Page, and lead FBI Counterintelligence investigator, Peter Strzok, were outlines of a personal relationship between Peter Strzok and FISA Court Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras.  We do not find out about the Contreras relationship until March 16, 2018, when more texts were released and a lot of texts were unredacted.

[IMPORTANT SIDEBAR – Keep in mind the Mueller-Weissmann special counsel was in control of these text messages, the redactions within them, and when they would be released.  THIS IS KEY.  The Mueller special counsel kept a lid on the damning texts until *after* they got the Flynn guilty plea, then they released them with redactions… and then later -as they accomplished more objectives- the special counsel then removed the redactions and re-released them.  The Weissmann-Mueller crew was in charge of Main Justice for anything that related to the Trump-Russia investigation, and everything involved the Trump-Russia investigation.]

We discover in March 2018 that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok discussed the FBI agent needing to talk with “Rudy” about the Crossfire Hurricane case and the use of the FISA court to gain their Title-1 search warrants.  Agent Peter Strzok noting he would likely have a casual conversation in a “social setting” at a “cocktail party” with Judge Contreras about the overall Trump-Russia investigation.  In hindsight, it became obvious the December 2016 recusal of Judge Contreras from the Flynn case was due to the unstoppable public release of these text messages.

Judge Contreras was appointed to the FISA Court court in May 2016. The FISA court eventually approved a Title-1 Surveillance Warrant against Trump campaign aide Carter Page on October 26th, 2016, essentially placing the entire Trump campaign under FBI surveillance.

The authorities within the Crossfire Hurricane surveillance was used against incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The FBI agent questioning Michael Flynn in January 2017 was Peter Strzok. The judge presiding over the sketchy Flynn plea, an outcome of that interview, was Strzok’s friend Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras. Therein lies the conflict.

From the text messages, we discover conversations in July of 2016 between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok where they talk about using the FISA court (FISC), and the relationship between Strzok and Rudy Contreras might be an issue for their use of the court for Title-1 search warrants.   Ironically they were predicting the kind of recusal that eventually materialized in 2017.

The recusal of Judge Contreras in the Flynn case resulted in Judge Emmett Sullivan being assigned.  We all know the FUBAR that fiasco turned into when it became obvious the Weissmann special counsel was manipulating evidence, hiding Brady material favorable to the defense, and attempting to proceed with a fraudulently based prosecution of Flynn, based on fabricated evidence.   The entire Flynn prosecution boiled down to the definition of “sanctions”, I digress.

The bottom line was – once the Page/Strzok texts were released by the special counsel (which they withheld until they achieved the Flynn guilty plea), Judge Rudolph Contreras recused ‘was recused’ from the Flynn case.

[NOTE: Because the “Rudy” relationship to Strzok was not publicly visible in the texts until March 2018; yet Contreras recused himself less than a week after the plea in December of 2017; it can reasonably be assumed that someone from the special counsel team told Judge Contreras about his mentions in the text messages after Judge Contreras took the guilty plea.]

Now, we go back to today and Judge Contreras as Chair of the Washington DC Calendar and Case Management Committee.  By “random assignment” Contreras notes the civil lawsuit Carter Page -v- James Comey has been reassigned away from James Boasberg who was the previous presiding judge on the FISA Court.

Who is the current Presiding Judge on the FISA Court?

…wait for it:

(LINK to FISA COURT)

You just can’t make this stuff up folks.

On the positive side, I now realize something -with a bit more clarity- that I did not emphasize enough before….

The Fourth Branch of Government has their own judiciary.  

It’s called the FISA Court.