The “Primal Scream of a Dying Regime” Reaches Fever Pitch.

THE INTRO TO Steve Bannon’s popular “War Room” show on Rumble talks about the “primal scream of a dying regime,” referring to the desperate cries of Biden and his ilk losing unfettered power as the people take back their country. The screaming has become increasingly cacophonic in recent days. To wit, today’s revelation that former New York City Mayor and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was fired from his radio talk show on Apple Media’s WABC-AM. Giuliani was suspended early on Friday before his daily show was to begin at 3 p.m. The show is number one afternoon drive show in the largest radio market in the nation, exceeding audience numbers of even Sean Hannity. The purported reason was Giuliani’s reporting of the rigged election of 2020, supposedly in violation of station policy. 

This violation doesn’t quite pass the sniff test inasmuch as the mayor has regularly and repeatedly discussed this topic on WABC for years and, as he said Friday, on his own 8 p.m. podcast, “Rudy’s Common Sense,” he had never before been told he couldn’t report on the story. Billionaire Republican Red Apple Media owner, John Catsimatidis, seems to be walking it back a bit by claiming Giuliani was fired after he refused to agree to comply with the terms in a letter sent by email to the mayor on Thursday. In a brief phone interview, Catsimatidis cryptically said, “My view is that nobody really knows but we had made a company policy. It’s over, life goes on.” ‘If no one really knew…’ Really?

Giuliani has bugger problems, like criminal charges he faces in Georgia and Arizona over the rigged 2020 election and his bankruptcy due to untoward judgments against him to the tune of $148 million. AZ indictment here. Georgia, here. The charges may be frivolous, but even frivolous cases require expensive lawyers. 

Steve Bannon, one of Trump’s chief strategists, also made the news on Friday. Bannon had received a four-month sentence in 2022 for refusing to provide evidence to a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6th events at the Capitol based on legal advice he followed in good faith concerning his obligation to honor presidential privilege. IOW, he didn’t ‘willfully’ fail to comply with any congressional subpoena—he was legally obliged to. When he lost, he was given two four-month sentences for two charges of contempt of Congress, to run concurrently, along with a $6,500 fine. Bannon appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, staying his sentence in the meantime. On Friday, however, the appellate court declined to take up his challenge. A problem with Bannon’s claim, which otherwise has some merit IMO, is that he had left his White House gig years before Jan. 6th. The appeals court, however, agreed with the trial court on the meaning of “willful” in the contempt statute, meaning “deliberately and intentionally,” which it found controlling. Bannon really should’ve appealed at the time the subpoena issued and IMO, didn’t receive prudent legal advice. 

But Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project at The Federalist, who has a much greater legal mind than mine, disagrees. Davis was former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, where he advised on the confirmations of federal judges and judicial branch appointees, overseeing the floor votes for 278 nominees, including the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He has also served in all three branches of government and in the private sector as a civil litigator at a major firm and as a sole practitioner.

Davis believes the D.C. Circuit is filled with partisans and cowards, and may be correct. Where I depart with his analysis, however, is in his belief the case was about executive privilege, which IMO it wasn’t. It just didn’t get to that nexus. The issue before the court was only whether Bannon complied with the subpoena or not. It’s a strict liability offense. There may be good cause to defy a subpoena or to simply not show, but it’s incumbent upon the witness to raise an excuse (e.g., in emergency surgery) or affirmative defense (e.g., executive privilege) at the outset and pre-litigate that issue, if necessary. I’d like to believe the result would be different if that had been done given the importance of executive immunity. 

Bannon makes it a point to not discuss his legal issues publicly, so nothing was said on the evening edition of War Room. Nor did he elucidate anything when he appeared on Giuliani’s “Rudy’s Common Sense” at 8 pm, which was aired from Palm Beach where the two men happened to fortuitously be for commiseration (and probably some adult beverages). Bannon could ask the full appeals court to hear his appeal or, alternatively, take it to the Supreme Court, but neither option is a sure thing. It could buy time, however, and if it buys it long enough for Trump to return to the White House, it would be reasonable to expect Bannon (and Peter Navarro and others) would be pardoned. It’s reasonable to believe he’ll at least try the full court or SCOTUS given his sentence is again stayed pending appeal. His lawyer, Doug Schoen, seems to be heading in that direction. The D.C. Circuit Court’s Opinion is here. 

Peter Navarro is in a similar predicament, though further along. He was sentenced to four months and is currently serving that time in Miami. This man, 74, who is small in stature and devoid of any history of violence, has been held as a political prisoner, unable to receive visitors, including, most startling, his own attorneys! Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) then requested to interview Navarro at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, but was denied because Navarro was deemed “too notorious” to be visited by a member of Congress. As Gaetz tweeted, “John Gotti was interviewed in prison. The QAnon Shaman was interviewed in prison. Director Peters HERSELF brought NBC News THROUGH PRISONS to showcase the work of corrections that’s being done!” 

This prompted another letter from another Committee and probably will call for another hearing to show the American people Congress is ‘doing something.’ The Committee on the Judiciary wrote to Peters on Thursday demanding testimony from the official who made the decision to deny Navarro visitors, here. The Committee also raised ongoing issues of abusive treatment of Jan. 6th defendants and inmates, who are still being pursued. Some have met bad fates, including suicide. Matthew Perna was one receiving press early on, but there are several others. Reports vary widely, however. Congressional letters, committee hearings, and reports have been futile.

The Internecine and Byzantine World of Politics, Hollywood-Style

IT CAN BE CHALLENGING to keep up with the Trump business record case out of New York because the proceedings are not recorded (for the public at least). Even still cameras aren’t allowed, and MSM isn’t covering the trial in any meaningful way. The best way to do it, IMO, is to watch “Watching the Watchers” about “misconduct involving police, prosecutors and politicians” on Rumble, presented by criminal defense attorney Robert Gouveia, who highlights the day’s testimony in detail and opines on it with humor. 

Gouveia gets his details on the testimony on X from @innercitypress, founded by public interest lawyer and investigative reporter Matthew Lee, who is in the NYC courtroom every day and sends out his seemingly nearly-verbatim notes on the testimony and court decisions, which Gouveia then reenacts on WTW. Transcripts and views of evidence would help further elucidate the process, even if one cannot see the witnesses’ demeanors as they testify, but alas, this is as good as it gets or is likely to become near-term. 

To augment Gouveia, I also like to watch David Freiheit, a Canadian attorney (and former political candidate of the populist People’s Party of Canada), whose moniker is, appropriately enough, ‘Viva Frei.’ He is a self-described “former Montreal litigator turned Florida YouTuber and Rumbler,” who is best questioning Los-Angeles-based co-host and constitutional lawyer, Robert Barnes, known for undertaking some tough cases over the years. (E.g., representing Ralph Nader for ballot access in his 2004 independent presidential bid.) Add Harvard constitutional law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz’s “Dershow” podcast and a few others for good measure, and you can get some competent analysis on the Trump cases.

On Thursday, the 10th day of the trial, yet another contempt hearing was held against President Trump in this case. 

District Attorney Alvin Bragg had initiated, but has not argued this case, while his prosecutors continued their narrative starring Michael Cohen, former attorney and ‘fixer’ for President Trump, who proved to be a serial perjurer, along with a former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz who, when questioned under oath just kept taking the Fifth (smart move.) More on this below.

Counsel for President Trump are currently developing their theory of the case in court that suggests Cohen; former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker; Stormy Daniels’ now-suspended attorney, Michael Avenatti, who was sentenced to 14 years’ incarceration and ordered to pay millions in restitution for his felony convictions; and Stormy herself, were essentially running an extortion racket. They’d refer public people, mostly in Hollywood (here, Trump [who hosted the reality TV show, “The Apprentice”]), back and forth to each other to get someone to threaten to reveal unflattering information about the victim (here, Trump), with Cohen setting up the victim Trump who was threatened with disclosure. Cohen and Avenatti would step in to make a deal (here, with Pecker and Stormy) to get them to agree to keep it quiet or ‘buy’ the story for a fee; with the conspiring parties divving up the spoils from the victim Trump amongst themselves through intermediaries, the attorneys Avenatti and Cohen). There are likely others involved, too.

I hadn’t considered such a scenario myself, though I haven’t been in on any investigation or seen any deposition transcriptions or evidence until now (and even now under the circumstances, it’s hearsay and not proven.) I like the Trump’s team theory of the case because it does seem to explain some oddities of behavior amongst the apparent co-conspirators, though the 45th president cannot be happy about appearing to be a patsy or a chump in court today. 

It’s doubtful these dubious witnesses now testifying will matter with this hastily selected jury from one of the bluest districts in the country, but all the president will need is one defector, and from the reactions of those he has interfaced with in the city, outside of court, he may get that defector. It seems there are more Trump supporters than imagined—so many, in fact, Trump believes the state may be in play. 

Back to attorney Mark Pomerantz. A Wikipedia synopsis of Pomerantz shows he resigned from the New York law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in Feb. of 2021, where he had defended people accused of organized crime. He must’ve thought his was some sort of community service when he left to assist the Manhattan D.A., Cyrus Vance, Jr., in an investigation into the finances of President Trump. Prior to that, Pomerantz had joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Criminal Division in the late-1990s, where he prosecuted mob boss, John Gotti, and many securities fraud defendants. His credentials are quite impressive, in fact. Unfortunately for Pomerantz, he ended up quitting his post in a hissy fit in almost exactly a year later over a dispute with the new D.A., Alvin Bragg, who, to his credit, expressed some reluctance to prosecute Trump given a seeming death of evidence against him. 

Pomerantz returned to Paul Weiss and wrote a book in 2023 entitled People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,  a real hit job where the author compared the 45th president to Gotti.  Bragg wrote to Pomerantz’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, prior to the book being released, expressing his concern the book, which had not been vetted, might reveal secret grand jury information. Bragg requested a delay in publishing, which was denied. (Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina understandably threatened Pomerantz with a defamation lawsuit.) Eventually, Pomerantz was found to have violated professional standards “by writing and releasing a book in the midst of an ongoing case” by the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York.

Lest one think Pomerantz is a lousy attorney, unlike Cohen, he at least knew enough to take the Fifth when he was questioned under oath by Rep.Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) a closed-door session of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government last May. The above background starts to explain what Gaetz was asking about… 

Johnson Won’t Resign. Should He Be Made to Vacate the Chair?

MANY IN THE U.S. House of Representatives, and their constituencies, had high hopes for the new G.O.P. speaker from Louisiana, Mike Johnson. Alas, he has been a big disappointment. There are a number of reasons, but among them is the budget. Johnson, who appeared to be a hawk as he proclaimed he would never pass legislation securing other nations’ borders before our own, has since advocated sending taxpayer money to Volodymyr Zelensky’s corrupt Ukrainian regime that continues to beg for yet more funding to vanquish Moscow. President Trump had once supported Johnson—who knows if he still does.

Calling himself a “wartime speaker” to rationalize his about face, Johnson has effectively morphed into a Dem, anxious to pour an endless stream of the national budget not to our own southern border, but to a land where we have no vital national interest to fight a war against everyone’s favorite boogeyman, the Russian Federation’s Vladimir Putin. To be abundantly clear, our own border has descended even further into the abyss of hell since his speakership and is only more chaotic and dangerous by the day with not one bloody red cent allocated or spent to improve the situation. So, too, are other issues weighing heavily on American households, such as inflation (especially for necessities such as food). For some reason, possibly sinister, Johnson’s tune seem to abruptly change after he was serenaded by Biden in the White House, who is clearly compromised by Kiev, and never been held accountable for his own corruption.

As of Wednesday, Johnson announced the House would vote on Saturday on a yet-to-be released foreign aid package amounting to tens of billions more for Ukraine, as well as for Israel and Taiwan. Included in the funding bills will also be the REPO Act, a TikTok bill, and other measures relating to Russia, China, and Iran. All four bills need only a House majority to pass. Johnson is effectively exploiting the desire to fund Israel to push through the rest of the bullsh!t. He also hopes he’ll pick up Dems to prop up his imperiled speakership given a number in the G.O.P. are outraged by his betrayal to the extent of requesting his resignation—e.g., Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Matt Gaetz (Fla.). Inexplicably, once in the Senate, they won’t be forced to vote each bill up or down—only as a whole.

We read Biden “strongly supports” Johnson’s nearly one-trillion sellout (that would make Nancy Pelosi blush) and that’s all we really need to know. It’s of further note his top policy advisor, Dan Ziegler, is a former lobbyist with clients who have a corporate interest in Ukraine. ) Ziegler isn’t the only one, either, according to a recent report in Breitbart.) 

This isn’t the only thing that has pissed off his brethren in the House. Johnson has flinched on advancing DEI; buying a new F.B.I. building to reward the Deep State; withholding the Jan. 6th tapes despite his promise to release them; and most recently, the renewal of Sec. 702 of FISA without a warrant requirement. Ordinarily, I’d cut Johnson some slack given the one-seat majority of the G.O.P. in the House, but at this point, make him resign or vacate the chair. At least that way, the Dems will have to run on the mess they made.

New Year, Same Bad Law. Same Old Renewal?

IT COMES UP every year, and every year, it passes Congressional muster despite its rather apparent unconstitutionality. Not to be missed again this year is the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, commonly referred to as FISA. Its constitutionality is repeatedly questioned because of its propensity to get Americans caught up in a surveillance dragnet along with foreigners for whom the law was originally meant to surveil. 

Right now, FISA is on hold, pending compromise in the House of Representatives between two committees: Judiciary and Intelligence. Generally speaking, Intelligence wants more surveillance authority; Judiciary, less. Generally speaking, Dems want more, the G.O.P., less. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wants a straight-up or -down vote after full debate. Conversely, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) vehemently disagrees. On Feb. 16th, prior to the winter recess, Raj Shah, a spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, posted to X:

“In order to allow Congress more time to reach consensus on how best to reform FISA and Section 702 while maintaining the integrity of our critical national security programs, the House will consider the reform and reauthorization bill at a later date.”

Primarily at issue is whether law enforcement can pore through collected data without a warrant. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), for one, believes the law should simply die a fast death (as do I). Last summer, the House Judiciary Committee held a three-hour hearing on the matter, and there seemed to be consensus at the time, but his resolution failed and was deferred until April 2024. 

The bill unveiled earlier this month renews Sec. 702 for another year, but would restrict the number of F.B.I. personnel who can access the database, generally prohibit law enforcement from scrolling thru the database in search of a crime, and require the F.B.I. to provide Congress with notice and get consent before gaining information about a lawmaker being targeted by a foreign agent. Minimally these provisions should have been in the law from the outset. The fact they weren’t only illustrates a lack of foresight of its drafters. The notice and consent required to spy on lawmakers also seems self-serving: those are the precise Americans we should be most concerned with having foreign contacts, given the stakes to the nation if they are compromised. 

Of course, it is also the case that Carter Page was wrongfully swept up in F.B.I. spying in 2016, so he is the example used to rationalize this, and with good reason. Liberty Nation described that mis- or malfeasance of justice thusly: “America’s top law enforcement agency cobbled together a phony conspiracy theory and hoodwinked a foreign intelligence surveillance court into granting them a warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen.” Carter Page has never been accused of any crime.

At Last: A New MAGA-Approved Speaker

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-La.) is the new G.O.P. Speaker of the House. He was the fourth nominee in what has become a bit of a sideshow (though Rep. Matt Gaetz [R-Fla.] managed to show some cockroaches, to wit, Kevin McCarthy, coming out of the woodwork in the process—watch here.) Once the third nominee, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, realized he had no chance to win, he graciously backed out after only a few hours as he had agreed, making room for Johnson, who was one of nine vying for the slot. Johnson defeated Reps. Byron Donalds of FL (a fav of many because he is black), Chuck Fleischmann of TN; Mark Green of TN; and Roger Williams of TX. Emmer is a RINO who 45th President Donald Trump said “would be a tragic mistake” to vote for.”

Johnson is a fourth-term rep who serves as the House Republican Conference’s vice chairman and sits on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. He is a lawyer by profession and had served in the state legislature. Crucially, he is considered a MAGA candidate, having voted against certifying the 2020 election results, Ukraine aid, and the 47-day continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government. (MAGA credentials are what shot down Emmer’s chance.) Johnson is also quite conservative, which is distinct from the populism of MAGA, but he won unanimously ostensibly because of Trump’s broad endorsement, his integrity, and perceived ability to unify the fractured and feuding G.O.P.  Even the three former nominees, Majority Leader Steve Scalise. Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, and Majority Whip Tom Emmer, backed Johnson.

He promptly declared his first order of business: Israel. While this is an issue of major import, it might have been preferable to announce an affirmative intent and actions to secure the southern border for the safety, security, and financial well-being of the abused American taxpayers. It is, after all, Make America Great Again, not MIG, Make Israel Great. Not that it’ll likely make a dime’s worth of difference…

How to Clean the House

IT WAS Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) who shook things up early this month when he took advantage of a condition then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy agreed to in advance of his election (after 15 rounds of votes!) to his leadership role in January. Gaetz used his just one vote knowing it would be enough to oust McCarthy since he didn’t behave as promised. McCarthy’s leadership had started out as a semi-love-fest, but deteriorated shortly thereafter. Some in the House felt they had been tricked. McCarthy was, it seemed, just a RINO in elephant’s skin. 

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) decided to make a bid for the Speaker’s gavel, but by Monday, 20 Republicans were prepared to vote against Jim Jordan and in fact did, not in spite of Trump’s endorsement, but because of it. Things didn’t get better. Even an unusual offer by Gaetz didn’t change it. After three unsuccessful votes, meaning Jordan didn’t get a minimum of 217 needed, he bowed out Friday afternoon, despite having vowed to stay in for as long as it may have taken. Still, MAGA Republicans and Jordan acolytes lobbied hard for him.

Some accused the nay-voters of voting against Jordan to spite Gaetz. Others suspected House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) was to blame. Scalise failed to be nominated for the position ostensibly because he isn’t considered a team player, and had actually refused to nominate Jordan afterwards. (Rep. Elise Stefanik [R-N.Y.] nominated Jordan instead.) Talk about not being a team player—he has earned the wrath of grassroots and MAGA Republicans. An advisor linked to former V.P. Mike Pence and Ga. Gov. Brian Kemp. Bobby Sparrow, is also believed to sabotage Jordan’s bid. (He has been dubbed “Pence’s sledgehammer.”)

The biggest ass donkey to threatened Jordan is House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who received all 212 votes of Dems, meaning he won the most votes.) He tweeted, “[There] are many good men and women on the Republican side of the aisle who are qualified to be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. There is no circumstance where Jim Jordan is one of them.” He called Jordan “the face of MAGA extremism,” and floated the idea of empowering Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) to prevent Jordan’s ascendency. 

House members have a Sunday deadline to put their names in for Speaker. On the bright side, it’s hard for the House to pass bills (and spending) with the status quo!

A Very Real Impeachment of a Very Fake Presidente?

AT LONG LAST, it appears the House of Representatives will commence an impeachment inquiry into Resident Joe Biden’s apparent influence-peddling scheme. There’s oodles of evidence against Biden already, though the MSM, to the extent it discusses it all, prefaces it with the obligatory (and false) ‘without evidence’ qualification. David Harsanyi’s article in The Federalist, “There’s More Than Enough Evidence For A Joe Biden Impeachment Inquiry” succinctly itemizes some of that evidence and its probable use in an impeachment.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) directed House committees to formally commence an impeachment inquiry into Biden as a “logical next step [to] gather all the facts and answers for the American public.” The House Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees will lead the inquiry. There apparently will not be a vote to authorize the inquiry, but that isn’t unheard of: the Dem’s 2019 inquiry into President Donald Trump was also done without a vote. Here, though, the stakes are higher for McCarthy, who, in January, cut a deal with members for his leadership role, that would allow for a single member to be able to force a vote to remove him for his speakership role if he strayed from his promises. 

McCarthy will have to play his hand carefully. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is one of the members who would have no qualms about casting that first single vote for McCarthy to ‘vacate the chair.’ Gaetz would have supporters, too, despite the fact that the RINO faction of the G.O.P. seems set on not rocking the proverbial boat. (This makes some, including me, believe that some amongst the RINOs may have a thing or two to hide themselves.)

Adding to the calculus McCarthy must factor into his equation is the Sept. 30th deadline to avoid a government shutdown over spending. The MAGA contingent of the G.O.P. doesn’t want to fund anything that fails to include serious border security provisions, among other things, such as a balanced budget, term limits, the release of all video footage from Jan. 6th, and a subpoena for Hunter Biden. 

McCarthy, it should be recalled, is third in line for the White House. If Biden goes down, Kamala Harris would be next up, but her popularity is even worse than Biden’s. She’d be the putative incumbent for Dems, and all hell would break loose!

Chris Wray: The “R” After His Name Stands for ‘Reprobate.’

HO HUM. ANOTHER DAY, another Congressional hearing (this time the House Judiciary Committee), another pol off the hook. Such was the case again on Wednesday when F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray (a Republican—sort of) took the hot seat.

Of course not all members were adversarial, like Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose name Zoe Lofgren may ring a bell from managing one of 45th President Donald Trump’s impeachments. Lofgren accused her G.O.P. colleagues of “engaging in conspiracy theories” to delegitimize the the Bureau “without any evidence,” a favorite blame-game among her ilk.

She’s wrong, of course, but why let the truth stand in the way of an untrue accusation? She just doesn’t remember the recent opinion in Missouri v. Biden or the findings from the Twitter Files that fly in what should be the very red faces of the bureaucrats who so enthusiastically censored any opposing views. Writing for The Federalist, Tristan Justice helpfully has provided Rep. Lofgren with the mounting pile of evidence to this effect, here. 

On questioning, Wray simply blew Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) off on the topic of Jan. 6th. He dismissed the notion that undercover agents were involved in any way by calling the allegation “ludicrous.” (There were, and it’s been well documented.)

The fact he refused to answer anything further may have told the Committee everything they needed to know. While it can be true the F.B.I. must, at times, keep matters of ‘humint’ under wraps, one would think that time has come and gone even though American citizens still sit in a D.C. jail awaiting trial. When Rep.  Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked Wray, “How many individuals that were FBI employees were in the Jan. 6th entry of the Capitol?” Wray replied, I really need to be careful here about were we have or have not used confidential human sources.” And so it went.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) inquired about the agency’s attempt to locate a suspected pipe bomber who had left devices at both the DNC and RNC Thomas Massie on Jan. 6th.  About two months ago, Massie and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked to be briefed on the F.B.I.’s failure to track the suspect’s vehicle down after it had been identified. Massie and Jordan had been tipped off by a whistleblower that the F.B.I. was derelict in its duty in failing to follow up on perfectly good leads. In a characteristic noncommital answer, Wray said he didn’t talk about ongoing investigations. Fair enough, perhaps, but as Massie pointed out, it’s been 900 days.

Based on a new interim report issued on Monday by the House Judiciary’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, it appears that the F.B.I. colluded with the Security Service of Ukrainian to flag social media posts of Americans for ‘partners’ in Silicon Valley to censor to further the government’s desired narrative. (More here.)

Wray’s response to inquiries into this was just that the Ukrainian Security Service had been a “longstanding good partner” of the F.B.I., despite the fact it has been found to be notoriously compromised by the Kremlin. (Russian collusion, anyone?) The full interim report is here.

Remarkably, Wray admitted to surveillance of Catholic parishes in the U.S. that prefer Latin masses. Apparently a F.B.I. Special Agent named Kyle Seraphin disclosed that the Richmond Division thought it could prevent ‘white supremacy’ by doing so. House Republicans wrote to Wray about this in April. Jordan asked Wray, “Do you think priests should be informants inside the church?”” Wray conceded the fact the F.B.I. may have engaged in such surveillance, but seemed to suggest it was all okay because it didn’t result in any investigative action.

Then there was the Bureau’s raid on and arrest of a ‘pro-life’ activist, ultimately acquitted. Wray said he wouldn’t “second-guess” the agents on the ground. Roy asked if that wasn’t exactly what his job was.

When Wray was asked if he thought the D.O.J. should rescind a memo it issued targeting concerned parents at school board meetings, Wray passed the buck to the A.G., but said the F.B.I. conducted itself properly. An interim staff report by House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee in March concluded there was no legitimate basis to have done this.

Wray also admitted the F.B.I. got Americans’ records from Bank of America without a warrant, and apparently, other banks, as a routine practice. Again, it was a whistleblower who revealed they had a “huge list” of Americans’ financial transactions on credit and debit cards used near the Capitol around Jan. 6th.

Massie asked about similar overly-broad records regarding gun purchases. Wray said he thought it was legal for business ‘partners’ to report or share info with the agency.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) read a transcript of Hunter Biden’s email threat to get paid that referenced Joe. Gaetz asked Wray if it wounded like a shake-down to him. Wray demurred in answering. When asked if he was protecting the Bidens, Wray said, “absolutely not.”

That is inconsistent with reports of at least two whistleblowers, one of whom is facing the wrath of the U.S. government. Dual American-Israeli citizen, Dr. Gal Luft, worked for CEFC, the same company as Hunter did, and did the same type of work. Hunter used the F.B.I. to leak classified data to C.C.P.-linked CEFC for kickbacks. Luft did not. Both violated Foreign Agents Registration Act. One was indicted this week. The other lives freely at the White House.

Revocation of Sec. 702 of FISA is Still Long Overdue.

ON FRIDAY, IT WAS REPORTED that more than 10,000 federal employees could access the personal data of ordinary Americans by using a secretive government surveillance program. It came under scrutiny due to alleged abuses. It was reported by U.S. inspectors general. It was reported to lawmakers. Watch. Nothing will happen. Business will go on as usual. It always does.

It was at an April 27th House Judiciary subcommittee hearing when lawmakers heard from three witnesses with the U.S. Office of the Inspector General, responsible for oversight of the likely unconstitutional Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That despicable piece of legislation gave intelligence agencies broad power to surveil foreigners suspected of spying for a foreign government or belonging to a terrorist organization. The operative word is foreign.  Unfortunately, U.S. citizens often get caught up in the crosshairs of Sec. 702 of FISA.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) asked the witnesses how many F.B.I. agents could have access to FISA-acquired data. He thought he knew the answer or else he wouldn’t have asked: about 10,000. All three witnesses agreed this figure sounded correct. 

Combined with the information from a court-ordered report released about a year ago—namely, that over 3.39 million queries of Americans were made by the F.B.I. in 2021 under FISA authority—this prompts an ongoing crisis of confidence in the Bureau’s respect for civil liberties. Worse still is that about 30 percent of those searches were done in error, urging an inquiry into competence and carefulness by those with accessing the database.

History is replete with examples of flagrant Sec. 702 FISA abuses by the intelligence community. For just one example, in 2019, Justice Dept. Inspector General Michael Horowitz randomly sampled 29 FISA cases by the F.B.I., only to discover not one of the cases were legitimate. For most, “there was unsupported, uncorroborated, or inconsistent information.” For four, the F.B.I. couldn’t even produce relevant investigative files to support their request. The I.G. found over 400 instances of noncompliance.

The F.B.I. came under renewed criticism when it surveilled a U.S. citizen, Carter Page, employed by then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Horowitz’s office found serious errors in the procedures used to obtain the surveillance requests. Page was improperly monitored by the F.B.I. shortly after he began working for Trump’s campaign, using a nebulous and unfounded pretext of Russian influence, according to a report released by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General from Dec. 9th. 

We now know the history of the bogus “Steele dossier,” and the dishonest means used by the F.B.I. to gain FISA court approval for surveillance based on clearly false claims or withheld evidence. Adding to the idiocy of the whole thing is the fact that the F.B.I. knew that Page regularly disclosed his contacts with Russians to another government agency that Page later identified as the C.I.A. All told, I.G. Horowitz found 17 “significant errors”on FISA warrant applications for Page.Top brass was involved, including then- F.B.I. Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, making it clear, in no uncertain terms, this was no accident. The F.B.I. cannot brag about any of it.

Then-House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) expressed serious concern at that time because the Trump campaign was under investigation long before the F.B.I. opened a formal probe in late-July of 2016. Some would like to know who ordered it and why. This spurious counterintelligence investigation was what was code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

The Act is supposed to be overseen by the secretive FISA court. Law enforcement must get approval from the court prior to carrying out a FISA search of Americans. Since 2021, F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray asserts the Bureau has reduced the number of illegal queries by about 90 percent. Still…

Members of Congress were advised by Sharon Bradford Franklin, chairperson of the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, that new legislation should be passed providing greater safeguards for Americans’ privacy. She suggested either a probable cause requirement or a court approval for every request to query an American. (Technically speaking, I think probable cause or a warrant is, in fact, required by the U.S. Constitution, but I may be being quarrelsome and picky.) Franklin had a sympathetic audience with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who agreed probable cause should be found, or else a simple revocation of the F.B.I.’s access to the database altogether may be the solution.  

The House Judiciary subcommittee hearing was held in advance of lawmakers’ reauthorization of FISA, set to expire at the end of 2023, if Congress fails to act. Let’s hope that, in fact, happens. The statute has been around for way too long…

Fifteen’s the Charm

KEVIN McCARTHY of California finally mustered the votes necessary to secure the House Speakership role he has been aiming for, after fifteen votes, late on Friday night. The reason it took so long? Even the G.O.P. found him controversial: they don’t trust him.  At Round-14, Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) were the last hold-outs, voting present instead of for McCarthy. Gaetz was especially vocal about his distrust. Even the G.O.P. constituency was largely opposed.Yet, interestingly, the Great MAGA King, as President Trump is fondly referred to as, endorsed McCarthy a while back, albeit in rather hesitantly and lukewarmly. 

The situation became so desperate that, on Jan. 6th, the anniversary of the Insurrection That Wasn’t, some MAGA Republicans (as Trump supporters are now called) took to calling for President Trump to take the Speaker’s gavel himself, even if only for 100 days, to get things off in the right (so to speak) direction. It wasn’t to be, of course, and everyone knew it, but there was some rich irony and retaliation to the proposition.

Instead what happened was what was supposed to happen in the Swamp (despite illegitimate sometimes-White House occupant, Joey Biden’s inappropriate embarrassment over it all.)  One swamp-dweller washes the back of another swamp-dweller and they swap swamp shit between them and move on to the sewer together. Here’s a list of what is believed McCarthy’s key alleged concessions, primarily good, that he probably will forget first thing Monday morning:

1. Subcommittee gavels for hold-outs;
2. House Freedom Caucus members get added to the Rules panel;
3. Removing the five-vote requirement to vote ‘no-confidence’ in the Speaker and replacing it with just one vote;
4. Agreement to take a hard-line stance on statutory debt limit;
5. Pledges to get floor votes on term limits and border security;
6. McCarthy’s PAC, The Conservative Leadership Fund, will broker a deal with the Club for Growth whereby the former will stay out of ‘open’ primaries when a lawmaker vacates a seat, presumably giving MAGA Republicans a fairer shot at winning;
7. Agreement to allow ‘open rules’ on spending measures, which might enable the G.O.P. to zero out funding for unpopular programs;
8. A cap on discretionary spending (though this is perhaps fanciful given input from the Senate and Presidential budget requests); and 
9. Development of a committee to essentially counter-weaponize the D.O.J. against the Biden regime (though this is doubtful).

Notably absent were provisions relating to corrupt elections, impeachment processes against Biden for, inter alia, not complying with the law in immigration and student loan ‘forgiveness;’ investigations into Biden family corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Russia; and failure to involve Congress in Ukraine war policy and financing, to name only three.

Some may claim McCarthy is effectively castrated as Speaker, but perhaps he needs to be, given the MAGA Republicans were the primary victors over the RINOs in 2022 and McCarthy is as RINO as one can be with an “R” after his name.I actually doubt it, though. The victory wasn’t as grand as hoped and a RINO is likely to ‘work across the aisle’ with his brethren Dems. Is that such a bad thing? Well, yes, when it’s the G.O.P. that always caves, as has been its recent history.