IG Report: No Political Bias But ‘Significant Problems’ In FBI Investigation Of Trump Campaign

The inspector general for the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, has released his report on the origins of the Russia investigation and the FISA applications for surveillance of Carter Page. As expected, the report found that the investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane,” was opened in good faith and that the surveillance of Page was carried out with a valid probable cause. Although the inspector general did not find a conspiracy biased against Donald Trump, he did find that there were 17 errors or omissions by the FBI in the four Page FISA applications.

In the report, which is available online here, the IG team found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened on July 31, 2016 and was based entirely upon information from a friendly foreign government (FFG) that detailed George Papadopoulos’ claims that “the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).”

“We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” the report states.

The investigation found “that, under the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity.”

“Additionally,” the report continues, “given the low threshold for predication in the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, we concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation.”

The report cites Bill Priestap, then the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director, who said that the FBI considered notifying the Trump campaign that some of its staffers could be compromised. Priestap told the IG that he decided against the notification because “if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.” The IG determined that this was a judgment call that was not addressed by FBI policy.

With respect to allegations of political bias in opening the investigation, the IG report says, “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.” Specifically, Lisa Page did not play a role in opening any of the investigations. While Peter Strzok was involved in the investigations, the report points out that Strzok “was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.” The decision to open the investigation was “reached by consensus after multiple days of discussions and meetings that included Strzok and other leadership in CD, the FBI Deputy Director, the FBI General Counsel, and a FBI Deputy General Counsel.”

Regarding Christopher Steele, the IG found that the FBI use of Steele was based on five factors. These included “(1) Steele's prior work as an intelligence professional for [the FBI]; (2) his expertise on Russia; (3) his record as an FBI CHS [confidential human source]; ( 4) the assessment of Steele's handling agent that Steele was reliable and had provided helpful information to the FBI in the past; and (5) the themes of Steele's reporting were consistent with the FBI's knowledge at the time of Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections.”

The report found that “the FBI's decision to rely upon Steele's election reporting to help establish probable cause that Page was an agent of Russia was a judgment reached initially by the case agents on the Crossfire Hurricane team. We further determined that FBI officials at every level concurred with this judgment, from the OGC attorneys assigned to the investigation to senior CD officials, then General Counsel James Baker, then Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and then Director James Comey.”

However, the IG found that “FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate.’” The report identifies “seven significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the first FISA application. These include:

1. Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;

2. Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures [safeguards against abuse that went into effect in 2001];

3. Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who was attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that (1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment" and (2) [redacted]

4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department;

5. Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails;

6. Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and

7. Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton.

“None of these inaccuracies and omissions were brought to the attention of OI before the last FISA application was filed in June 2017,” the IG found. “Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal applications.”

There were three subsequent FISA applications that contained an additional 10 errors. These errors were:

8. Omitted the fact that Steele’s Primary Subsource, who the FBI found credible, had made statements in January 2017 raising significant questions about the reliability of allegations included in the FISA applications, including, for example, that he/she had no discussion with Person 1 concerning WikiLeaks and there was “nothing bad" about the communications between the Kremlin and the Trump team, and that he/she did not report to Steele in July 2016 that Page had met with Sechin;

9. Omitted Page’s prior relationship with another US. government agency, despite being reminded by the other agency in June 2017, prior to the filing of the final renewal application, about Page's past status with that other agency; instead of including this information in the final renewal application, the OGC Attorney altered an email from the other agency so that the email stated that Page was “not a source" for the other agency, which the FBI affiant relied upon in signing the final renewal application;

10. Omitted information from persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele or had direct knowledge of his work-related performance, including statements that Steele had no history of reporting in bad faith but “[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment,” “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value,” “didn’t always exercise great judgment,” and it was “not clear what he would have done to validate” his reporting;

11. Omitted information obtained from Ohr about Steele and his election reporting, including that (1) Steele's reporting was going to Clinton’s presidential campaign and others, (2) Simpson was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media, and (3) Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the US. President";

12. Failed to update the description of Steele after information became known to the Crossfire Hurricane team, from Ohr and others, that provided greater clarity on the political origins and connections of Steele's reporting, including that Simpson was hired by someone associated with the Democratic Party and/or the DNC;

13. Failed to correct the assertion in the first FISA application that the FBI did not believe that Steele directly provided information to the reporter who wrote the September 23 Yahoo News article, even though there was no information in the Woods File to support this claim and even after certain Crossfire Hurricane officials learned in 2017, before the third renewal application, of an admission that Steele made in a court filing about his interactions with the news media in the late summer and early fall of 2016;

14. Omitted the finding from a FBI source validation report that Steele was suitable for continued operation but that his past contributions to the FBI's criminal program had been " minimally  corroborated," and instead continued to assert in the source characterization statement that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings";

15. Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an FBI CHS in late October 2016 denying that the Trump campaign was involved in the circumstances of the DNC email hack;

16. Omitted Joseph Mifsud's denials to the FBI that he supplied Papadopoulos with the information Papadopoulos shared with the FFG (suggesting that the campaign received an offer or suggestion of assistance from Russia); and

17. Omitted information indicating that Page played no role in the Republican platform change on Russia's annexation of Ukraine as alleged in the Report 95, which was inconsistent with a factual assertion relied upon to support a probable cause in all four FISA applications.

While the 17 errors “represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory  agents with responsibility over the FISA applications” in the eyes of the IG, the report further states, “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures.” Nevertheless, the IG was not satisfied with explanations for the errors and omissions and believed that “case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI [Office of Intelligence]” or the FISA court.

Regarding Bruce Ohr, who met separately with Steele, the IG “concluded that the federal ethics rules did not require Ohr to obtain Department ethics counsel approval before engaging with the FBI in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane matter because of Nellie Ohr's prior work for Fusion GPS. However, we found that, given the factual circumstances that existed, and the appearance that they created, Ohr displayed a lapse in judgment by not availing himself of the process described in the ethics rules to consult with the Department ethics official about his involvement in the investigation.”

While any significant error in such a high-profile investigation is troubling, the 17 errors and omissions identified by the inspector general are cause for concern. However, rather than a Deep State conspiracy, the IG report identified “an absence of sufficient policies to ensure appropriate Department oversight” as the probable cause of the problems with the FBI’s handling of the case. Despite years of claims to the contrary, the investigation “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” in the investigations of Trump campaign aides. That should be cause for celebration.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Play The Reverse Card

One of the many frustrating problems of modern politics is the partisan nature of almost every aspect of every issue. As many of us have pointed out, the parties seem to flip their positions based on who is in office at the time. This is no way to run a country, especially one that values the rule of law.

As an exercise, I find it useful to look at events with the roles reversed. For me personally, if I would oppose an action by a Democrat, I also oppose it when Donald Trump does it and vice versa. The mental exercise helps me to keep my principles straight rather than bending to partisan biases. It helps to keep me objective.

Along those lines, let’s play a game. Let’s imagine that American politics have rules similar to a giant game of Uno. In our game, let’s throw the reverse card down and see what happens.

In our reversed, bizarro world, Hillary Clinton won the election. Now three years into her Administration, witnesses come forward to allege that she demanded a quid pro quo from a foreign leader, let’s call him the president of Scandalstan, in exchange for access and foreign aid, which has already been approved by Congress. Further, the witnesses claim that Hillary ordered her trusted personal fixer, Sidney Blumenthal, to bypass the State Department’s chain of command and go to the Scandalstan himself to do campaign research.

At some point, Hillary gets the idea that there is a massive scandal against her presumptive Republican opponent, Donald Trump, brewing in Scandalstan. Preferring to face a weaker opponent, she pressures the president of Scandalstan to announce a public investigation that names Trump personally. She ties this announcement to a White House meeting with the new president of Scandalstan and then places a hold on military aid, which Scandalstan needs to defend itself against an incursion by its arch-enemy, Evilonia.

However, Scandalstan doesn’t seem to be taking the hints. Months go by and they haven’t announced the investigation. The Scandalstanians say that they don’t want to get involved in American politics.

So, Hillary agrees to a phone call with the Scandalstanians. In the call, they exchange pleasantries and President Clinton (I shudder to type those words) notes that America does a lot for Scandalstan but that the US does not get much out of the relationship. The president of Scandalstan then says that he needs more American missiles to defend his country against the Evilonian tanks.

“I would like you to do us a favor though,” are the next words out of Hillary’s mouth. She wants Scandalstan to “find out what happened” with people running a website that claims that Hillary is a secret serial killer. The president agrees to look into the people running the fake news site. He stresses that his aids have already spoken with Blumenthal on the matter and that he will do whatever he can to stay in Hillary’s good graces.

Then Hillary asks the president for another favor. She wants him to help Blumenthal look into Ivanka Trump’s business dealings in Scandalstan, which Hillary believes are corrupt. There is no firm evidence of corruption. Hillary doesn’t have enough information to instruct the DOJ to get a warrant or go to a grand jury for an indictment, but she knows that the whiff of Ivanka’s corruption could hobble Trump’s campaign enough for someone like John Kasich or Ted Cruz to become the nominee.

The call, along with other associated meetings on the subject of the investigations, sets off alarm bells in the heads of many staffers. Several White House employees who were privy to the call go to in-house lawyers with their concerns and others file whistleblower reports. Through it all, the vital military aid to Scandalstan is still locked up tight with the end of the fiscal year rapidly approaching. If the aid isn’t released by the end of September, Congress will have to appropriate the money again and Scandalstan’s soldiers will be hard-pressed to fight off the Evilonian tanks.

But then a whistleblower report is leaked. Coincidentally, Hillary releases the aid to Scandalstan the next day. This allows her a fig leaf in her claim that there was no quid pro quo because Scandalstan got its aid without announcing the investigation.

Republicans are apoplectic at Hillary’s behavior. Not only did she try to sell access to the Oval Office for a political investigation, the evidence is strong that she tried to use aid appropriated by taxpayers to benefit her reelection campaign and smear her likely opponent. When Republicans ask the Clinton Administration for documents relating to the delay in the Scandalstan aid, they face a stone wall.

However, the debate over quid pro quos and whistleblowers and the original intent of impeachment obscures one of the most important facts of the entire Ukraine scandal. For a president to use his office to leverage a foreign government to conduct (or announce) a sham investigation of a political opponent is wrong on its face. The favors requested in the president’s own call summary represent a flagrant abuse of power. 

Although no analogy is perfect, this is an accurate representation of the case against Donald Trump. It merely changes the names. If Republicans are honest with themselves, I’m sure that they would be extremely angry at Hillary’s abuse of power in using her position to further her own political career. In fact, the allegations that Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and that she acted as though she was above the law were two of the many very good reasons that Republicans gave back in 2016 when they argued that Hillary was unsuited for the presidency.

Let’s look further as well. Assume that Hillary had been the president who was the subject of the Mueller report’s claims that there were 10 separate episodes of obstructive behavior. Even though Mueller did not ask for an indictment of the president, based on his understanding of the DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, Republicans would not hesitate to call Hillary’s behavior disqualifying and impeachable.

Finally, consider the use of a national emergency as a legislative tool. It isn’t difficult to picture Hillary Clinton using the pretext of a national emergency to do what Congress has decided not to do. Maybe Hillary would use a state of emergency after a spate of mass shootings or a terror attack to declare a ban on the private use of “assault rifles.” Maybe she would declare the current health care system a public health crisis and use a national emergency to implement a public option. Again, Republicans would rightly consider such actions to be an impeachable subversion of congressional authority.

To be fair, there is also a weakness in Democratic handling of the impeachment process, however. The Constitution is silent on how the House conducts the impeachment process, an inquiry is not even a constitutional requirement, so the Democrats have much leeway in the nuts and bolts of the process. It also isn’t necessarily a disqualifying factor that Democrats did not allow Republicans to call irrelevant witnesses or unmask the whistleblower. Even though the statute does not protect the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure by anyone other than the inspector general, there are legitimate public policy reasons for protecting the anonymity of whistleblowers.

The best reasons for slowing the impeachment process come from Jonathan Turley and David French. In his French Press column, French argued that the Trump Administration’s stonewalling of Congress is not improper based upon precedent that the president and his immediate advisors cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. This position is based upon a Nixon-era interpretation and was also supported by the Clinton and Obama Administrations. The argument is based upon the president’s need for independence from Congress as the head of a co-equal branch of government.

Second, Prof. Turley argued in his testimony, not that Donald Trump was not guilty of the charges before him, but that the investigation was not complete. Turley told congressional investigators, “A quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature.”

“In the current matter, much remains unknown in terms of key witnesses and underlying documents,” Turley said later. “There is no explanation why the matter must be completed by December.”

As both French and Turley point out, House Democrats have not exhausted all means of obtaining more evidence against Donald Trump. Rather than submitting requests, Congress could issue subpoenas for testimony and documents and ask the courts to enforce the subpoenas on an expedited basis. While Republicans often point out that President Obama rejected congressional subpoenas from the Republican House, it is also true that the Obama Administration turned over the subpoenaed documents when confronted with a court order.

Likewise, lawsuits against Donald Trump’s abuse of national emergency statutes are also winding their way through the legal system. A resolution to these cases could impact the articles of impeachment. If the president loses the case and refuses to back down, it would be another clear example of an abuse of power.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I believe that Donald Trump’s actions justify impeachment, but that does not mean that I support a willy-nilly rush to impeach before a self-imposed deadline. Polling shows that a plurality of Americans supports impeachment but further investigation and revelations of corruption by the Trump Administration would help to build public support for his impeachment and removal. If there is to be any chance of removing Donald Trump, then overwhelming public support is required. With the current slim edge favoring removal, that strong public pressure on Republicans is simply not there… yet.

I’ll close with more words of wisdom from Jonathan Turley. As you read his quote, don’t forget that Turley was actually called to testify by House Republicans in Trump’s defense.

“The House should not assume that the Republican control of the Senate makes any serious effort at impeachment impractical or naïve,” Turley said. “All four impeachment inquiries have occurred during rabid political periods. However, politicians can on occasion rise to the moment and chose principle over politics.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Think Twice Before Giving The Gift Of Technology

This Christmas, technology gifts are on many lists for people playing Santa around the country. It isn’t only mobile phones, computers, and iPods but there are now wifi-enabled gadgets of every shape and size. But you should think twice before giving these gifts, especially to children, or getting them for yourself.

I’m not anti-technology by any means but just because something is new and high-tech doesn’t mean that it is a must-have. For example, a wifi-enabled toaster wouldn’t necessarily a marked improvement over a traditional toaster. Do you really need to check the status of your toast via the internet or be able to control the settings on the device remotely? Probably not.

Even devices that have legitimate reasons to be connected to the internet also come with downsides. One of the most obvious is the potential for internet addiction. The proliferation of smartphones has already left us a nation of social media devotees who eschew real human contact for the instant gratification of likes in an app. Sites like Twitter and Facebook are designed to make people addicted and keep checking the unending timelines.

If this is a problem for adults now, it will be even worse for the next generation who are growing up in with screens constantly in front of their faces. Smartphones and tablets are used as babysitters for young children even though the American Society of Pediatrics recommends that children under two should not get any – zip… zero… zilch - screen time. Children older than two should only get one to two hours of screen time per day. The Society also recommends that screen time be limited for older kids, something that is very difficult when kids have their own personal devices.

It isn’t just that watching digital media can affect the physical, mental, and emotional development of young brains, television has been described as a stranger that we welcome into our homes who then undermines the values that we teach our kids. The internet makes that problem even worse.

Probably the majority of internet videos are unrated. As Forest Gump said, “You never know what you’re gonna get” and you never know what your kids are watching. Many internet videos are laced with profanity and often ridicule the things that we teach our kids, such as respect for God and country or even the idea that you should be polite and kind to others. On the internet, offensiveness has become a virtue. It would be difficult (but not impossible) for kids to get away with watching porn on the living room television, but it is a simple matter for them to do so on their phones and tablets.

Modern video games are not like Pac-Man or Space Invaders. Many of the most popular games are rated mature for foul language, graphic violence, drug use, and casual sex. Your teenagers will want these games. Even kids much younger than teenagers are playing these games because many parents simply don’t care. If you don’t get these games for your kids, they will still have access to them when they visit friends.

The problem isn’t limited to kids with their devices either. If you’re watching this sort of stuff with your kids around then they are absorbing it just as surely as if they clicked play themselves. Parents with a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality are undermining their own parenting.

There are other factors as well. The internet is a good way to go broke $10 at a time. Just about every app that you download requires a subscription or has in-app purchases. Some have both. In addition to the cost of the device and the internet or cell service, you will want to sign up for services such as Disney Plus ($6.99), Netflix ($8.99), or Hulu ($5.99). Premium plans cost more, of course. Gaming apps and video games have in-app purchases for things that kids will want to enhance their experience. After you buy a game console, your kids will want the membership plan that allows them to play against their friends (and strangers) online. For instance, an Xbox Live subscription is another $9.99 per month. Naturally, most of these subscriptions are set up on recurring credit card billing so it’s easy to lose track of just how much you are spending.

Finally, security is an issue with internet-connected devices. By now, we should all be aware of the threats of strangers who meet online and stalk in real life as well as cyber theft of credit card information. Phishing attacks in which you click on a deceptive link can allow all of your devices to compromised. It was a simple phishing attack through an email with a fake link that allowed the Russians to hack the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Clicking the link allowed the Russians to access the entire DNC network.

The proliferation of internet-connected devices provides many other opportunities for hackers. Smart appliances often do not have cyber defenses that are as robust as computers and smartphones. The gap could compromise your entire home’s network. As far back as 2014, computer security experts traced a cyber attack to a “botnet” made up of home appliances such as internet-enabled refrigerators. Keep in mind that internet-based security cameras, baby monitors, and other home devices could also be accessed by hackers and stalkers.

I’m not saying to avoid technology purchases, but tech products do come with responsibility. If you get your kids devices, you owe it to them to limit their screen time and monitor how the devices are being used. This isn’t easy, but there are tools to help parents. One good resource is Funamo, a cloud-based service that allows parents to monitor and control their children’s phones and tablets for a one-time fee of $19.99.

You should also educate both yourself and your children on internet security. Predators can stalk children online and kids can unwittingly click a bad link that could allow hackers to infiltrate your other devices via a common network. You wouldn’t leave small children alone in the mall with your ATM card. You shouldn’t leave them alone online either.

The key to safe technology is education, awareness, and common sense. Learn about web-based threats and be aware of what your family members are doing online. And don’t buy a wifi-toaster.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Have Democrats Learned That Voters Want A Moderate?

More than six months after what many pundits predicted would be a flash in the pan, Joe Biden still sits atop Democratic primary polls. The reason for Biden’s preeminence is simple: He is the dominant moderate in a race filled with progressives. Even though moderates do not represent a majority of Democratic primary voters, the moderate niche is large enough to allow Biden to sit atop the cluster of progressives competing for votes among a divided group of leftists. The situation is very similar to how Donald Trump’s plurality allowed him to win the Republican nomination in 2016 amid thanks to Republican primary voters divided between Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.

Now, after months of watching Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders vie for second place, another Democrat is contesting Biden for the moderate lane. Pete Buttigieg has exhibited a rise in the polls, doubling his share of voters since the beginning of October, per the Real Clear Politics average. Buttigieg now stands at 11 percent, which earns him an increasingly close fourth place. Aside from the Big Three, Mayor Pete is the only candidate to poll at more than 10 percent.

Whether Buttigieg is a moderate depends on how you define “moderate.” Jill Lawrence noted in USA Today that “his résumé includes service as a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan and three years at the management consulting firm McKinsey & Co.” and adds, “He’s religious and married (and also, by the way, gay).” Lawrence also notes that his public option health plan “for all who want it” is less radical than the Medicare-for-all plans of many of his opponents.

On the subject of health, it is also relevant to note that Elizabeth Warren’s Icarus-like journey to tie Joe Biden at the top of the polls only to fall apart and begin a long, slow crash back to ignominy can be traced to her radical health care reform plan. When Warren released her much-vaunted Medicare-for-all plan, even Democrats blanched at her sweeping plan to remake America’s health care system as well as its associated price tag.

Elizabeth Warren wasn’t the only candidate whose campaign flamed out over an overly radical platform. Beto O’Rourke, who got off to a quick start by raising more than six million dollars (enough to build a bionic man in 1973), failed to energize his flagging campaign by promising to confiscate assault rifles and tax churches. Progressives failed to rally to Beto’s liberal Christmas list, perhaps recognizing that these positions were too far out of the mainstream to be accepted by a majority of voters.

A third Democrat who succumbed to progressive preferences was Kamala Harris. There is more than one reason for Harris’ failure to launch, but one factor was that she catered her campaign to “woke” Twitter. In so doing, she failed to attract enough mainstream Democrats to keep her campaign going.  

But the fact that Buttigieg is appealing to moderate Democrats doesn’t mean that he is a moderate, especially in Republican terms. “Moderate” to Democrats means something different than it does to Republicans. Even a moderate Democrat is going to hold positions that most conservatives would consider to be deal-breakers. For conservatives, a voluntary public option is scarcely better than Medicaid-for-all and even though Buttigieg is a Christian, his religious views are far from harmonized with conservative evangelicals, especially when it comes to abortion. Mayor Pete may not be a true moderate but he does seem to appeal to moderate Democrats who aren’t sold on Joe Biden.

In fact, it’s difficult to say exactly what Buttigieg really is. As a city mayor, he doesn’t have much of a track record on national issues. As with other recent candidates such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump, his scant history makes Buttigieg a blank slate onto which supporters and opponents can project what they want to see.

Whether Buttigieg continues to surge or becomes another also-ran, it seems that Democratic voters are increasingly looking towards the moderates for their candidate. If Buttigieg falters, Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar seem likely to inherit the moderate-but-not-Biden niche.

However, in the end, Joe Biden is the heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination. His victory will be in no small part due to the support of the largest moderate segment of the Democratic coalition, a demographic that is both staunchly Democrat and heavily Christian. It is a core group with which other Democrats, such as Buttigieg, have been able to make little headway against Biden.

Black voters will be the moderate kingmakers who propel Biden to the nomination.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Durham And Horowitz Find No Evidence Of Conspiracy Against Trump

The twin reports from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and US Attorney John Durham have been eagerly awaited by both sides in the debate over whether members of the Trump campaign were baited by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in an effort to establish a probable cause to begin an investigation. A few weeks ago, we reported that Horowitz’s report would not contain bombshells about Deep State conspiracies that had been unearthed and now it seems that Durham will not give conspiracy theorists any Christmas gifts either.

The Washington Post reports that  Horowitz had submitted a number of questions to Durham, who was handpicked by Attorney General Barr to investigate and prosecute misconduct in the DOJ relating to the Russia investigation. Among the questions was whether Durham had evidence that Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor, was a government asset who was used to entrap members of the Trump campaign. The Post’s sources, who have seen a draft copy of the Horowitz report, say that Durham has no evidence to contradict government denials that Mifsud was an asset.

The inspector general’s office, the Durham investigation, and the DOJ all declined to comment on the report.

Sources indicate that the Horowitz report will find that there was adequate cause for the FBI to initiate the Russia investigation but will also find fault with FBI handling of the case. In particular, Horowitz will criticize later renewals of the FISA application for Carter Page, which failed to convey that information from Christopher Steele was not as reliable as previously believed. Nevertheless, the report will apparently not conclude that the omissions were significant enough to have compromised the integrity of the entire renewal.

Horowitz will also find fault with Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered an email that related to the FISA application against Page. Clinesmith was forced out of the FBI after his deception was discovered and may be indicted by Durham. Again, Horowitz will say that the action did not compromise the integrity of the investigation.

Clinesmith, who spoke with the Post, also sent emails and text messages with anti-Trump comments. Clinesmith said that such messages were jokes and that his political views did not affect his work.

The Horowitz report will also address the origin of the Russia investigation. As was commonly believed, the investigation was based upon comments made by Trump advisor George Papadopoulos to the Australian ambassador in May 2016. Even though the DNC hack was not public knowledge until July, Papadopoulos told Greek and Australian diplomats in May that Russia was in possession of stolen emails relating to Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos got his information from Mifsud, who he now claims was an agent for some western intelligence agency.

The full IG report has not yet been released to the public, but Barr, who has seen drafts of the report, has disputed Horowitz’s conclusions that there was no conspiracy of DOJ officials who were biased against President Trump and worked to undermine his presidency. The Washington Post reported recently that Barr has praised Horowitz’s work but believes privately that the IG does not have access to enough information to draw firm conclusions. With the DOJ exonerated, Barr has indicated that he believes the key to the conspiracy may lie with other agencies such as the CIA or with foreign governments.  

Without being specific, Barr told CBS News last May, “I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions… Some of the facts that … I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”

It is not known whether Horowitz has contacted the CIA and other intelligence agencies to look into possible ties to Mifsud, but Barr and Durham have reportedly reached out to foreign governments. Horowitz’s questions to Durham involved whether he might have found additional information that the IG was not privy to and that would change his conclusions. Durham’s answer seems to have been negative.

At this point, it seems that the Horowitz and Durham investigations will undercut years of conspiratorial talking points from the Trump Administration and Republican pundits. However, don’t expect the sunlight of facts to dispel the myth that moles within the government were out to get Donald Trump. A characteristic of conspiracy theories is that layers can be added to the conspiracy to deny information that contradicts the narrative. Years of breathless-but-wrong revelations of DOJ wrongdoing won’t be easily overcome.

To paraphrase a favorite Ronald Reagan aphorism, it isn’t that the Deep State believers are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Trade War Heats Up Again

President Trump provoked a stock market selloff yesterday when he told reporters that a China trade deal might not be completed until after next year’s election. There are also possible new tariffs on France as well as renewed import taxes on Brazilian and Argentinian steel. The combined announcements of disappointing trade news on multiple fronts show that the trade war is still going strong.

The president sent stocks tumbling yesterday when he told reporters at the NATO conference in London, “A China trade deal is dependent on one thing — do I want to make it.”

Mr. Trump added, “In some ways, I like the idea of waiting until after the election for the China deal, but they want to make a deal now and we will see whether or not the deal is going to be right.”

Back in October, President Trump announced the deal with China, but a firm agreement has so far failed to materialize. Last spring, a near-agreement with China on trade fell apart when Mr. Trump, the self-proclaimed “tariff man,” balked at removing the taxes on Chinese imports.

Now negotiators are racing a Dec. 15 deadline imposed by the President last summer. At the end of next week, $300 billion in Chinese products are scheduled for a 15 percent import tax increase. The December 15 tax increase includes consumer goods not previously subjected to tariffs. These include technology products such as cellphones and computers that will be in high demand in the weeks before Christmas.

Today, Trump Administration officials are working to undo the damage of what they call an “off the cuff” remark. Officials cited by Bloomberg downplayed the notion that trade talks were at an impasse and were hopeful for a resolution before the scheduled tax increase next week.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told CNBC, “ Trump wants to conclude a deal that can be enforceable, that can be reliable and be consistent with what the deal says.”

“We in agriculture are optimistically hopeful we can conclude this,” Perdue said, adding, “Every farmer in America would rather have trade than aid.”

The prospect of increased tariffs on Chinese imports comes days after the president announced that he is restoring steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentina. In a tweet on Monday, President Trump accused the two countries of devaluing their currencies, which he said was “not good for our farmers.” Mr. Trump’s response was to restore the steel and aluminum tariffs that were originally imposed in May 2018.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1201455858636472320?s=20

However, a devalued currency is a byproduct of a tariff war. In an undated article on American Express, Frances Coppola explained that, when the US places a tariff on imports, companies in the targeted country receive fewer US dollars. Those dollars would often be traded on monetary exchanges for the local currency. Since fewer dollars are being traded for Brazilian reals or Argentinian pesos, the demand for those currencies drops and their value goes down.

In reality, America’s farmers are suffering because China retaliated to President Trump’s tariffs with retaliatory taxes on American exports. These taxes hit American agriculture hard, but they benefitted countries like Brazil. Where American farmers used to export to China, the trade war has shifted Chinese agricultural purchases to countries that compete with the US. Brazilian farm products have helped to replace American products in China.

Finally, there is also the prospect of new tariffs on France. Also on Monday, President Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs on a long list of French products that includes wine, cheese, beauty products, and handbags in retaliation for a French tax on digital services that impacts American social media companies such as Facebook and Google. The new US tariffs would be in addition to tariffs on $7.5 billion in European goods that the Administration imposed in October.

“If anyone is going to take advantage of the American companies, it's going to be us, it's not going to be France,” Trump told CNN.

France has pledged to “retaliate strongly” if the proposed tariffs go into effect. So far, the Trump Administration has not released an implementation date for the new tariffs.

With an impeachment already in process and presidential approval underwater, the economy has been one of the few bright spots in President Trump’s reelection campaign. Despite the risks of meddling with the economy, Mr. Trump cannot help himself when it comes to tariffs.

For months, there have been signs that the economy is slowing even though the stock market has continued to climb and unemployment remains low. US manufacturing has contracted for four straight months and the farm economy is being propped up by government handouts. Businesses are hesitant to make plans and investments when the president might tweet a drastic regulatory change at any moment. Many of these warning signs can be traced to Mr. Trump’s arbitrary trade policies. If he chooses to ignore them and is damaged in the 2020 elections by a weak economy, he will have only himself to blame.   

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats And Republicans Issue Dueling Impeachment Reports

Yesterday House Democrats released a report on President Trump’s activities with respect to the Ukraine that summarizes information obtained in hearings before the impeachment committees. Republicans seeking to minimize the damage preempted the release with a report of their own on Monday. Together, the two reports draw the battle lines for the upcoming senate trial of Donald Trump.

The Republican report (which can be read here) charges that “Democrats in the House of Representatives have been working to impeach President Trump since his election” and that the inquiry “is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system.”

“The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump pressured President Zelensky to initiate investigations for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 election,” the Republicans maintain, also denying that evidence supports charges of a coverup or obstruction.

Republicans continue to assert that President Trump’s skepticism about dealing with Zelensky was due to “a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.” The report also calls the “president’s initial hesitation to meet with President Zelensky or to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review… entirely prudent.”

Not surprisingly, the Democratic report (available to read in full here) on the hearings reaches entirely different conclusions. The Democrats list several overlapping counts of misconduct by President Trump with respect to his Administration’s policies toward Ukraine. These include “forcing out” the US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, putting “Giuliani and the Three Amigos in charge of Ukraine issues,” freezing military aid to Ukraine, conditioning a meeting with President Zelensky on announcing an investigation of the Bidens, and asking Ukraine to intervene in US elections by investigating the Bidens.

The next section of the 299-page report addresses alleged obstruction by the president. The counts of obstruction include a categorical refusal to comply with constitutional congressional oversight, a refusal to produce subpoenaed documents, refusal to allow top aides to testify, attempts to block key witnesses, and attempts to intimidate witnesses.

Not all of the allegations against President Trump involve criminal acts, but, as I have discussed in the past, the original intent of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not require commission of a crime. As the Framers understood the phrase, it could mean a long list of abuses of power or acts that made an official unfit for his position. In fact, the House website maintains a list of officials impeached throughout US history and half do not cite crimes as the reason. Among the charges that were not crimes were many that could easily fit the allegations against President Trump such as “abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office” and “obstructing and impeding an official proceeding.”

Both sides agree that the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky is at the center of the matter. However, while Democrats argue that the “call record alone is stark evidence of misconduct; a demonstration of the President’s prioritization of his personal political benefit over the national interest” in which Trump linked Ukrainian weapons purchases to investigations of Crowdstrike and Burisma, the Republicans claim that the “summary does not evince any threats, coercion, intimidation, or indication of conditionality.” While Democrats focus on the position that Trump’s request for a “favor” involving the investigation of a political rival was improper on its face, Republicans hang their defense on their belief that President Trump did not apply “pressure” to Zelensky.

While the Democratic report focuses on the witness testimony and their understanding of a shadow diplomatic effort headed by Rudy Giuliani, Republicans point out that the witnesses had “no firsthand knowledge” of the quid pro quo for aid or President Trump’s direct orders to make the deal. However, this defense is undercut by the fact that the Trump Administration refused to comply with congressional requests for subpoenas and witnesses. In a now-famous clip from 1998, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that failure to comply with congressional subpoenas was itself an impeachable act with a precedent that extended back to the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon.

The Republican failure to mount a defense that provides witnesses and evidence to refute the allegations by the whistleblower and congressional witnesses shows that the GOP has already accepted that President Trump will be impeached and are pinning their hopes on an acquittal in the Senate and vindication at the polls next year. The downside to the Republican strategy is that polling consistently shows a plurality in favor of impeaching the president. Worse, 70 percent of Americans believe that Trump’s actions were wrong. Neither statistic bodes well for a Republican electoral victory.

The problem for Democrats is that, while voters do prefer impeachment by a slim margin, if they hope to remove the president from office, it will require overwhelming public opinion against the president. The country is not there yet. If Democrats rush the impeachment vote and Donald Trump is acquitted in the Senate, it is possible that the strategy could backfire next November.

The best strategy for Democrats is to move forward slowly with the process. When every piece of information that comes out is damaging to the Trump Administration and makes Republicans look even more corrupt, there is no need to rush the process. House Democrats should subpoena the Trump Administration officials who refused to testify and charge them with contempt of Congress if they don’t show up. At the same time, they should keep digging and unearthing new revelations such as the fact that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the president’s erstwhile defender on the Intelligence Committee, was in contact with Giuliani and Lev Parnas, an indicted Republican fundraiser and Giuliani associate, while the Ukraine aid was being withheld last summer.

If Republicans don’t start to break with the president as evidence mounts, Democrats will at least build public support for impeachment and removing Donald Trump. At that point, if Senate Republicans refuse to remove him, voters will be prepared to finish the job.

Originally published on The Resurgent