June 22, 2023
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Durham exposed the deep state. The question is what is Congress going to do about it?
By Robert Romano
“Nothing has changed.”
That was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) at a June 21 committee hearing taking testimony from Special Counsel John Durham, who in his final report exposed an effort by federal government intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, the State Department and the Hillary Clinton campaign to falsely accuse Clinton’s political opponent in 2016, former President Donald Trump and his campaign, of being Russian agents.
Despite the investigation going nowhere—former Special Counsel Robert Mueller found there was no Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC and give the emails to Wikileaks—it carried on for close to three years, embroiling not only the Trump campaign, but also the transition after he won and the Trump administration in a top secret inquiry to kneecap the Trump presidency.
According to Mueller’s final report to the Attorney General, “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
As Durham noted in his voluminous report, “it seems highly likely that, at a minimum, confirmation bias played a significant role in the FBI’s acceptance of extraordinarily serious allegations derived from uncorroborated information that had not been subjected to the typical exacting analysis employed by the FBI and other members of the Intelligence Community. In short, it is the Office’s assessment that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. Similarly, the FBI Inspection Division Report says that the investigators ‘repeatedly ignore[ d] or explain[ ed] away evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign … had conspired with Russia …. It appeared that … there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent.’ An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not.”
And it wouldn’t end there. Now, the Justice Department is engaged in another top-down investigation of Trump, indicting him for documents he possessed when he left office that were effectively declassified his actions President under Article II of the Constitution, even as Trump stands for reelection in 2024 against sitting President Joe Biden.
That’s what dictatorships do. If one crime doesn’t stick, they just find another one with which to jail their political opponents over policy differences. Durham gave members of Congress a road map with how it all went wrong, citing what he called “personal bias” by members of the Justice Department who were determined to take Trump down at any cost.
The price has been public faith in the institution of justice. As Jordan noted, “60 percent of Americans now believe there’s a double standard at the Justice Department. You know why they believe that? Because there is.”
Jordan is right, there is a double standard. but he might be relatively alone in expressing a willingness to use actual legislative vehicles to take this on. There are too many invested in a system that seeks to control public officials through leverage and threats of disloyalty if they don’t toe the line, particularly on foreign policy issues.
It has become a French Revolution style Committee on Public Safety, with Robespierre-like led persecutions against opponents of the regime. But not for crimes against the state, but policy differences.
In fact, Trump’s policy proposals related to Russia were laced all throughout the original Oct. 2016 Carter Page FISA warrant as part of the justification for the surveillance, with allegations that Russia was attempting to convince the Trump campaign to not send weapons to Ukraine and to instead recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine, telling the FISA Court that the Trump campaign, per the FISA application, “worked behind the scenes to make sure [the Republican] platform would not call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces” stating Trump “might recognize Crimea as Russian territory and lift punitive U.S. sanctions against Russia,” citing news reports.
The Justice Department also included an Aug. 2016 Politico story highlighting Trump’s positions on Ukraine, including his suggestion the people of Crimea preferred to live in Russia, and his doubts that the territories Russia had seized could be reclaimed suggested without World War III, which Trump was running against on the campaign trail as much as Hillary Clinton.
At a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Politico quoted Trump saying a military conflict to take back Crimea would risk nuclear war: “You wanna go back? …You want to have World War III to get it back?” And it quoted Trump on ABC’s “This Week” suggesting the people of Crimea supported Russian annexation: “The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.” This was Trump’s anti-war position in 2016 that helped him secure narrow wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and an Electoral College majority against Hillary Clinton, who he often called a war-monger.
These were policy differences between Trump and his opponent, Clinton, that inevitably were transformed into a plot by a foreign adversary to create a Manchurian candidate of sorts.
So, what to do about all of this?
Durham towards the end of his report adopts a reform proposal by former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker to have non-partisan Justice Department official who is tasked to act in an adversarial manner at the FISA Court and after FISA surveillance has been initiated to essentially poke holes in the Justice Department’s case against an individual: “Stewart Baker proposes having a ‘career position for a nonpartisan FBI agent or lawyer to challenge the FISA application and every other stage of the investigation.’ This would be done in investigations that ‘pose partisan risk.’” Durham wrote, “we recommend that the Department seriously consider Baker’s proposal for an official to challenge both a politically sensitive FISA application and other stages of the investigation.”
But is that enough? Jordan for his part at the committee hearing appeared skeptical, instead calling for legislative action by Congress to rein in the Justice Department—before it’s too late.
As Jordan declared, “That has got to change, and I don’t more training, more rules is going to do it. I think we have to fundamentally change the FISA process, and we have to use the appropriations process to limit how Americans’ tax dollars are spent at the Department of Justice.”
Standing for election against an entrenched political establishment, calling to “drain the swamp” and disagreeing with U.S. foreign policy has become a crime. The question is what is Congress going to do about it.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.
To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2023/06/durham-exposed-the-deep-state-the-question-is-what-is-congress-going-to-do-about-it/
Video: Top 3 Takeaways From Durham Hearing: Bad Actors in Federal Government Coming for YOU!
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOu5vlzBmC0
Video: Karine Jean Pierre’s Delusions Of Grandeur
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXE8695PYk
Video: John Durham’s Response Triggers Woke Democrat
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYUrdhfCOzk
Proof That the Radical Left Agenda is Failing as Americans take Populist Positions on Immigration, Taxes, Trans issues and Education
By Bill Wilson
A comprehensive new poll forecasts a huge rise in populist sentiment among the American people, with the public aggressively pushing back against globalist policies and the radical cultural agenda destroying the country from within.
The latest Harvard-Harris poll shows a majority of Americans reject allowing illegal immigrants to settle in the U.S. and support cutting taxes in their state, returning educational power to parents, and fighting back against the anti-science trans agenda.
There is also a common populist thread among the public figures Americans say they support the most at the moment. Among all voters – not only Republicans – the public figures with the highest approval ratings are former President Trump, alternative populist candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and free speech advocate Elon Musk, in that order.
In fact, buried inside the poll is a finding that you certainly are not going to see broadcast in the mainstream news any time soon but should nonetheless be very heartening: "Most voters want to live in a lower-tax pro-charter school state with restrictions on gender surgery for minors and abortion".
Idaho, North Dakota, or any other number of Red States that are constantly ridiculed by the radical left, and yet by a nearly two-to-one ratio, Americans want to live in one of these states.
While Republicans naturally choose the “low tax” culturally conservative states at far higher rates than Democrats in the poll, nearly half of Democrats (48%) say they want to live in such a state, as do nearly two-thirds (63%) of Independents.
Wirth regard to immigration, the public shows a strong preference for curbing illegal immigrant access to U.S. driver’s licenses, and over two-thirds of Americans (68%) say those who cross the border illegally should be discouraged from settling in the United States. It is worth noting this position is not remotely in-line with the Biden Administration’s current immigration policy which includes bending the law to encourage more illegals to enter the U.S. and gain residency.
On taxes, a full 83% of the public favors cutting taxes in their state, and this includes 90% of Republicans, 81% of Independents, and 79% of Democrats. Yes, by nearly four-to-one, Democrats want state taxes cut. Blue States are strangling themselves, and even their liberal constituents have reached a breaking point. What’s more, nearly half of the public also opposes raising taxes on businesses and upper-income earners, though just over half favor this.
A wide majority of Americans also want to course-correct on cultural issues, with eight out of ten Americans saying they would favor legislation it their states giving parent’s more rights in their children’s education and three-quarters saying charter schools should be encouraged.
On the issue of biological sex and gender, seven out of ten Americans say schools should not teach children that gender is something individuals can “declare” without any biological correlation.
The cultural pendulum is shifting back toward a more pragmatic and populist order, and the absurd cultural agenda that has been seeping into virtually every powerful institution for decades might actually be seen for the cancer it is.
The steady stream of outward migration from Blue states like California and their crumbling and crime-ridden cities into freer, safer, and more conservative Purple and Red states like Nevada and Idaho will no doubt impact every aspect of American society in the years to come. As usual, the Founders of the United States can be thanked for creating a strong system of federalism that affords Americans one of the most powerful weapons with which to fight back against draconian elites.
Bill Wilson is the former President of Americans for Limited Government.