Judicial Watch today released emails received from the Department of
Justice sent by former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page. The records include an email from Strzok to other
FBI officials about Trump’s tweets regarding them spying on him, as
well as their interaction with other media outlets including CNN.

[WEEKLY UPDATE]

STRZOK-PAGE EMAILS SHOW FBI INVESTIGATED PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWEETS
CRITICAL OF OBAMA AND FBI

[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch today released emails received from the Department of
Justice sent by former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI
attorney Lisa Page. The records include an email from Strzok to other
FBI officials about Trump’s tweets regarding them spying on him, as
well as their interaction with other media outlets including CNN.

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for
all communications between Strzok and Page (_Judicial Watch v. U.S.
Department of Justice_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:18-cv-00154)). The FBI is only processing the records at a rate of
500 pages per month and has refused to process text messages. At this
rate, the production of these emails will not be completed until late
2021 at the earliest.

On March 18, 2017, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
his boss, then-Asst. Director for the Counterintelligence Division
Bill Priestap, along with colleagues Jon Moffa and Page, about his
research into President Trump’s tweets concerning his being
wiretapped:

Sending the tweets in question along with posting times. Doing some
research, time stamping in Twitter can be glitchy … [T]he tweet
times below were all -3 hours from east coast time, which I adjusted
(ie, the first listed as 3:35am). I think I recall reporting at the
time described the tweets as occurring around 630, not 330.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump
Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! –
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:35 AM

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race
for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A
NEW LOW! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:52 AM

I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that
President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to
Election! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:52 AM

How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very
sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 7:02 AM

On March 29, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey’s chief of staff,
Jim Rybicki, emails
[[link removed]]
then-Executive Assistant Director, National Security Branch Carl
Ghattas, former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence
Division Bill Priestap, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok,
Page and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker about a “Sensitive
Matter Briefing:”

Rybicki writes, “The Director would like a briefing tomorrow
(Thursday) on THE SENSITIVE APPLICATION. [Emphasis added] I just spoke
to Pete and gave him the scope. Will probably be at 5pm after the
unmasking briefing.”

McCabe replies to Strzok and Ghattas, saying, “Any idea what’s
driving this?”

Strzok replies, “Jim R said OAG told him the AG wanted a brief in
advance of signing and would want a little bit of time to think about
it.”

The second renewal application and order of the original FISA warrant
on Carter Page was filed one week later, on April 7, 2017
[[link removed]].
Both the
April 7 and June 29, 2017, applications were withdrawn
[[link removed]]
due to fraud.

These astonishing emails, which have been hidden for years, show the
Comey FBI was investigating President Trump over his critical tweets
of the agency and Obama’s spying abuse and misconduct. These emails
also show that Comey was intimately involved with the illegal and
dishonest FISA spy operation against President Trump. Where is Durham?

On March 20, 2017, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
Page, Moffa and a redacted General Counsel official a “Secret”
amendment submitted to the FISA court by the DOJ on September 29,
2006, which changed the FBI’s “Standard Minimization Procedures
for Electronic Surveillance and Physical Search.” Strzok notes that
the document “contains the changes to who/how indexing is done.”
The amendment, which was co-authored in 2006 by then-Counsel for
Intelligence Policy James Baker was meant to comply with the FISA
court’s order of December 2005 “to broaden the category of FBI
personnel who can enter U.S. person information into ‘general FBI
indices’ from the current limitation that only the ‘supervising
case agent’ may authorize such indexing and that the Attorney
General would also authorize the indexing of U.S. person information
that is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or
assess its importance.”

On March 22, 2017, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
Moffa and a redacted official saying that, in response to a question
from “Wolf” [presumably Wolf Blitzer of CNN] “about what you do
if you’re in the FBI,” former CIA officer and frequent CNN guest
Phil Mudd responded: “first thing I tell my counterintelligence guys
is, slow down, make sure you do everything right. When this eventually
becomes public, it will be more picked over than even the Clinton
investigation was.” Strzok then tells Moffa: “He’s right. And
that worries me.”

On March 24, 2017, reporter Matt Zapotosky of _The Washington Post_
emails
[[link removed]]
two unidentified FBI officials, noting that, in his review of
government records relating to Hillary Clinton, he discovered a page
in which “a box is checked to indicate the material is ‘Grand Jury
Material.’ Is that right? I don’t think anyone had ever been aware
of a sitting grand jury in the Clinton case.”

The Zapotosky email then gets forwarded to other FBI officials,
including Page, and a lengthy, redacted email exchange follows.
Eventually, Page adds Strzok to the exchange, saying, “Adding Pete,
just to double check my work.” Strzok’s response is also redacted.
One of the redacted officials replies to Strzok, saying, “AD Kortan
asked if this could just be about legal process to get access.”
Strzok responds, “It might be [redacted].”

On March 6, 2017, Page forwards
[[link removed]]
to Strzok a _Washington Examiner_ article
[[link removed]]
sent to her from the General Counsel’s Office discussing how the GAO
determined many sensitive US government offices and officials were
being housed in property owned by companies connected to foreign
governments like China, posing a security threat.

Page asked Strzok, “Did you hear about this?”

Strzok replies, “I hadn’t, thank you.”

Strzok forwarded the article to Dina Corsi, of the FBI’s
Counterintelligence Division, “FYI.” A redacted official in the
Counterintelligence Division responds, “Thank you for highlighting
this to us!” Strzok forwards that response to Page, and says, “Our
property ci. folks hadn’t heard either.”

On March 23, 2017, _New York Times_ reporter Michael Schmidt emails
[[link removed]]
FBI Asst. Dir. Michael Kortan saying:

Mike: Wanted to flag you on something. Three of my colleagues are
working on a story about the Russia investigation. They’re told that
Jared Kusher [sic] is among the individuals who the F.B.I. is
scrutinizing for their meetings with Russians. My colleagues were told
that Ambassador Kislyak, after meeting with Kushner and General Flynn
in early December at Trump Tower, set up a meeting with Kushner and a
Russian banker. Kushner ultimately met with the Russian banker. The
banker worked for Alpha Bank. Thanks, Mike.

Schmidt’s email is forwarded by Kortan to Lisa Page. Page forwards
it to Strzok and Moffa, saying “Just wanted you both to have
this.”

On April 3, 2017, a redacted official in the FBI Washington Field
Office emails
[[link removed]]
Strzok a link to a _Guardian_ article
[[link removed]]
titled “Michael Flynn: New Evidence Spy Chiefs Had Concerns about
Russia Ties,” saying, “Im [sic] sure you are tracking, but this
has gotten too deep.” Strzok replies, “I wasn’t. WTF is
this…” Strzok then forwards the exchange to Page, saying “Not
great.”

On April 4, 2017, former FBI Asst. Dir. John Giacalone emails
[[link removed]]
Priestap and Strzok to advise them that the _New York Times_’
reporters Adam Goldman and Mike Appuzzo were doing a story on the
Hillary server investigation. Giacalone stated, “[R]eceived referral
obligated to open a case; knew at some point both political parties
would have issues during and at conclusion of investigation; and case
agents did outstanding investigative work leaving no stone
un-turned.”

On March 19, 2017, Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
a _Washington Post_ article
[[link removed]]
to Jon Moffa and other redacted persons discussing disclosures that
FBI official Bill Evanina made in a public speech about private
contractors stealing national security information. Strzok says,
“Any idea what he’s talking about?” A redacted Unit Chief of
CD-40 replies, “No idea. I queried the other UCs [Unit Chiefs] and
they didn’t know either.” Moffa responds, “Who is Evanina’s
boss at the bureau? It really seems like a weird dynamic where there
is no requirement for him to coordinate with the AD of CD [Asst.
Director of the Counterintelligence Division].” Strzok forwards
Moffa’s response to Lisa Page, saying, “A fine question…”

On February 10, 2017, a Senate staffer sent a letter
[[link removed]]
to the FBI which a FBI congressional liaison official forwards on to
others in the FBI, indicating that Sen. Claire McCaskill was
“seeking a closed briefing on any investigation the FBI is
conducting on General Flynn and his communications with the Russian
government.” The redacted FBI forwarder adds, “Obviously we would
never provide a briefing on any pending investigation, let alone
acknowledge one, so this is just for awareness on your end.” The
email exchange is then forwarded on to Strzok, Jennifer Boone, and
other FBI officials. Strzok forwards it to Page “FYSA.”

On February 14, 2017, Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
Priestap a _New York Times_ article
[[link removed]]
titled “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian
Intelligence.” In his cover note, Strzok states, “This is the
article Mike K [presumably Kortan] gave a heads up on earlier.
Contains flat out inaccuracies. I will sit down with [redacted] early
and draft some comments in advance of D meeting with Burr.”

Priestap replies, “Thank you and, yes, please get info to [redacted]
Lisa and Rybicki (and cc me), as soon as you have finished.” Strzok
then forwards the exchange to Page, Rybicki, Jon Moffa and an
unidentified person, saying, “See thread below. There are several
significant errors/inaccuracies in the NYT article this evening.
We’ll get you a red-lined copy with comments first thing tomorrow in
advance of D meeting with Burr.”

On February 15, 2017, Michael Kortan emails
[[link removed]]
Strzok about the same piece, saying, “Pete, Can you send me you
[sic] latest analysis on the NYT story from last night?” Strzok
replies, “Just sent on red side.”

In a February 15, 2017, email
[[link removed]]
to Page, Strzok mocks a _New York Times_ correction that, “at least
three, not at least four” people were examined by the FBI. Strzok
says, “Ha! ‘Three’!”

On March 20, 2017, Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
to Page and an unidentified official a _Washington Post_ article
[[link removed]]
titled “President Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad
Twitter Day” and Strzok says, “This does a good job of parsing
through the various tweets.

On March 2, 2017, a redacted official in Comey’s office emails
[[link removed]]
Strzok and Page, saying,“I believe Mike already discussed with Lisa
the need to bring the NYTs back in today for a short meeting…. Can
we squeeze something in perhaps at 4p?” Strzok replies, “Works for
me.”

On March 2, 2017, Strzok forwards
[[link removed]]
to Page, Moffa and Priestap a _Politico_ article
[[link removed]]
titled “Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak is Washington’s Most
Dangerous Diplomat.” Strzok states, “Politico has the Mayflower
speech, but ‘it is not clear whether either Sessions or Trump spoke
at any length to Kislyak at Trump’s foreign speech in April’,
citing the article. Strzok adds, “Also interesting if true, the only
opportunity to meet would be at the reception in advance of the
speech.”

On March 6, 2017, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
Page “Can you call my desk [redacted]?” Pages replies, “Do we
really need to talk tonight?” Strzok responds, “No, but this
re-write needs to go out tonight. So any thoughts welcome [redacted].
And I hope Andy is good with the re-scoping.”

On March 6, 2017, Strzok sends an email
[[link removed]]
with the subject “AG letter to Judiciary,” along with an
attachment called “Sessions, 03-06-17, letter, testimony.pdf.”
Strzok pastes a paragraph of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions
testimony into the cover email, in which Sessions describes the
occasion and content of the time he met with Russian Amb. Sergey
Kislyak.

On March 10, 2019, Page emails
[[link removed]]
Strzok saying, “NPR had a very informative story on the Emoluments
Clause this morning. You should totally listen.” Strzok replied,
“I will. You spell that all by yourself? I’d have ended up with
immollomints. <smiley emoji>”

On March 13, 2017, then-Dep. Asst. Attorney General George Toscas
emails
[[link removed]]
Strzok, copying Dep. Asst AG David Laufman, stating,“As mentioned
last week, the Acting DAG [Dana Boente] has requested a weekly update
on the sensitive matter.”

On March 23, 2017, Lisa Page sends an email
[[link removed]]
to Moffa, Strzok and several other FBI unidentified officials with the
subject line “Meeting with the DI” [probably Directorate of
Intelligence] and says, “Hi friends [redacted]. Thanks guys. Lisa”
Someone in the General Counsel’s office responds, “Not a problem.
I’ll begin to lay the groundwork.” Moffa then replies, “It
sounds like you have pretty routine interaction up there, but if I can
help at all in reaching out to them, just say the word and I’ll do
it… J”

On March 29, 2017, Strzok emails
[[link removed]]
Page, “It makes me angry” that Sen. Chuck Grassley had published a
letter
[[link removed]]
to Director Comey calling for answers from the FBI as to how Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe could have overseen the FBI investigation into
Trump-Russian “collusion.” Grassley pointed out that McCabe’s
wife had accepted $700,000 from associates of Trump’s opponent,
Hillary Clinton, during his wife’s run for the Virginia state
Senate.

On March 30, 2017, a redacted official emails
[[link removed]]
Moffa and Strzok, advising them to read _Gizmodo_
[[link removed]]
about the “D’s [Director’s] private Twitter acct.” Moffa
replies, “I did not already know but I just read the whole thing. I
have to say I didn’t expect that …” The unidentified official
replies, “[I]f true, my respect for the D only solidifies when I see
that he named himself after America’s preeminent 20th century
political theologian.” (Gizmodo revealed that day that Comey used
the Twitter handle “Reinhold Niebuhr
[[link removed]
who was a
prominent American Marxist and Protestant theologian.)

On March 31, 2017, the Democratic Staff Director on House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence sends an email
[[link removed]]
to the FBI congressional liaison office saying “RM [Adam] Schiff
will be viewing the documents at the White House this afternoon and he
requests your agencies in-person assistance in verifying the
authenticity of the documents and your technical assistance in
reviewing them.”

Judicial Watch has been doing the heavy lifting in this case for quite
a while. In July 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered
[[link removed]]
emails showing Strzok, Page and other top bureau officials in the days
prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration
discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could
“play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”

In February 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered
[[link removed]]
an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her
interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for
“the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose
to use a non-state.gov email account “out of convenience” and that
“it proved to be anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology
and the “convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302
report that summarized the interview.

Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails
showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire
Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional
“confirmed classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure
non-state.gov
[[link removed]]
email server “beyond the
number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements;
Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting
Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits
to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation.
The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related
to the Seth Rich controversy.

In January 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered
[[link removed]]
Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the
lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the
Clinton email controversy.

In November 2019, Judicial Watch revealed
[[link removed]]
Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of
Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.

Also in November, Judicial Watch uncovered
[[link removed]]
emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the
transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system,
Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email]
chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of
paragraphs.”

In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the
“electronic communication
[[link removed]
(EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation,
termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016
presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official
Peter Strzok.

STILL FIGHTING OR OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN WASHINGTON, DC

In our fight for our First Amendment rights, Judicial Watch filed an
opposition
[[link removed]]
to a request to dismiss our civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against
Bowser and other responsible DC officials who failed to grant us
permission to paint “Because No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC
street.

We told the court that Mayor Bowser and the other DC officials acted
arbitrarily and engaged in prohibited viewpoint discrimination in
failing to grant our request.

The lawsuit (_Judicial Watch. v. Muriel Bowser, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:20-cv-01789)) arose after two political messages – “Black
Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” – were painted on 16th
Street NW, across from the White House.

Here’s the history.

On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington DC led
by the Black Lives Matter movement, a team of artists, residents,
District employees, and demonstrators painted “Black Lives Matter”
and the District’s crest, which resembles three stars above an
“equals” sign, on 16th Street NW. The following day, demonstrators
painted “Defund the Police,” a key demand of the Black Lives
Matter movement, alongside the “Black Lives Matter” message. The
District government admits that the demonstrators lacked permission to
paint “Defund the Police” on the street. To a reasonable viewer,
the entire message can be read “Black Lives Matter Equals Defund the
Police.”

On June 10, 2020, we asked the Mayor Bowser for permission to paint
our motto, “Because No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC street.
Mayor Bowser and other District officials largely ignored our
request. Deputy Mayor John Falcicchio eventually told us to pursue a
permit through the District Department of Transportation’s online
permit application process, but the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and
Transportation Director Jeffrey Martoonian now admit there is no
permit for street painting.

At least two other organizations also formally requested permission to
paint their own expressive messages on the District’s streets after
“Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” were painted on
16th Street. Each organization was treated very differently from the
painters of “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police.”

When in late June 2020 a veterans’ advocacy group requested
permission to paint “Veterans Lives Matter” on the street in front
of the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a
block from the “Black Lives Matter Equals Defund the Police”
message, the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel told the group they
could not do so unless the street was closed. The Mayor’s attorney
also told the group that they could apply for a block party or
special-event permit to have the street closed on a temporary basis.

When a student organization sought to paint “Black Pre-Born Lives
Matter” on a District street in early August 2020, police reportedly
told them they could do so, then told them they could not do so. When
they tried to write their message in chalk on a nearby sidewalk, they
were arrested.

As we demonstrated in our opposition (Plf’s Opposition to Defs’
Motion to Dismiss (Combined & File Stamped) p. 7):

Whether the District’s streets are considered traditional public
fora, designated or limited public fora, or nonpublic fora, the First
Amendment forbids arbitrary treatment of requests to engage in
expressive conduct and viewpoint discrimination.

We argue that the Mayor and other DC officials did the opposite of
what the First Amendment requires: They acted arbitrarily and
discriminated against us because of our message.

Mayor Bowser gave us the runaround rather than equal access to the
District’s streets to paint our ‘Because No One is Above the
Law!’ message. Our First Amendment rights shouldn’t take a back
seat to the Mayor’s political promotion of ‘BLM/Defund the
Police’.



PROFESSOR SUED BY MUSLIM STUDENT, PUNISHED BY COLLEGE WINS IN COURT

Every now and then we get good news from the political correctness
tsunami engulfing our colleges and universities. Our _Corruption
Chronicles_ blog has such a story
[[link removed]]
about a professor in Arizona under attack by the terrorist front group
CAIR.

A federal court has ruled in favor of a professor thrown under the bus
by his public college after a Muslim student claimed the Islamic
terrorism portion of a world politics class violated his
Constitutional rights. The course is offered at Scottsdale Community
College (SCC) in Arizona, which is part of the Maricopa County
Community College District. It is taught by Nicholas Damask, a veteran
professor who organizes the course into six modules that cover world
politics. One is dedicated to defining and analyzing Islamic
terrorism. Students are required to read excerpts from a book called
“Future Jihad” written by a Lebanese-born Middle East expert who
has worked with the U.S. departments of Justice, Defense and State.

A Muslim student, Mohamed Sabra, sued
[[link removed]]
Professor Damask and the Maricopa County Community College District in
June for violating his First Amendment right by supposedly condemning
his religion. In the complaint, filed by the terrorist front group
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Sabra demands that
Damask stop teaching the materials in question until they “do not
have the primary effect of disapproving of Islam.” Founded in 1994
by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq
Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, CAIR was named
as a CO-CONSPIRATOR
[[link removed]]
in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy
Land Foundation. In a statement
[[link removed]]
announcing the lawsuit against the Arizona college district, CAIR
alleges that Sabra “was punished for refusing to agree with an
anti-Muslim professor’s unconstitutional condemnations of Islam
during a Political Science class” and that he was forced to disavow
his religion.

Like many taxpayer-funded academic institutions nationwide, SCC caved
into the left’s demands and administrators quickly apologized and
tried to pressure the professor into signing an apology letter written
by the college’s marketing team. The Maricopa County Community
College District also caved in, launching an investigation and warning
that the content of Damask’s course would be reviewed for
“insensitivities.” Damask, who has taught world politics for more
than two decades, stood up to his employer and refused to apologize.
He eventually contacted a group dedicated to defending rights such as
freedom of speech and religion, due process and legal equality at
America’s colleges and universities. The nonprofit, Foundation for
Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), sent a letter
[[link removed]]
to SCC’s president pointing out that the school’s actions—as
well as the district’s—were flatly inconsistent with the
college’s First Amendment obligations and the basic tenets of
academic freedom. “Further, the implication that Damask is being
investigated by the college’s governing board will have an
impermissible chilling effect on faculty expression and teaching,”
the letter states. Publicly committing Damask to apologizing and a
mandate that the content in question will be removed from his course
is alarming and inconsistent with his rights to freedom of expression
and academic freedom under both the First Amendment and Arizona law,
according to FIRE.

This month a federal court settled the issue, dismissing the lawsuit
against the professor and the community college district, which has 10
campuses. In the ruling
[[link removed]]
Judge Susan Brnovich writes that a curriculum that “merely conflicts
with a student’s religious beliefs does not violate the Free
Exercise Clause.” She also writes that the Muslim student was not
required to adopt the views expressed by the professor or the
course’s required reading, but only to demonstrate an understanding
of the material taught. “Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to attitudes
and outlooks at odds with his own religious perspective,” the ruling
states. Appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2018,
Judge Brnovich also writes this in her order: “Examining the course
as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the
teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. Only
in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module
as anti-Islam.”

Standing up to these circumstances is not easy.

THE LEFT THREATENS VIOLENCE OVER A POTENTIAL ELECTION LOSS

This will be no ordinary count the vote, declare a winner election.
The Left is already planning and implementing the chaos it hopes will
counter the potential reelection of President Trump. And all the while
it is projecting this treachery onto Trump – witness Al Gore’s
hysterical suggestion
[[link removed]]
that the military may have to remove him.

Now comes more evidence of this dangerous plan. Micah Morrison, our
chief investigative reporter, describes
[[link removed]]
it in his _Investigative Bulletin_.

American history is no stranger to heated election disputes. In 1824,
Adams beat Jackson in a race thrown to the House of Representatives.
In 1876, Hayes beat Tilden in a race that ended Reconstruction. In
1888, Harrison lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote,
beating Grover Cleveland. In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon, allegedly
benefiting from vote fraud in Texas and Illinois. In 2000, Bush beat
Gore in an election fought through Florida and up the Supreme Court.

In none of these cases, did the Republic fall. But today is different,
if you believe the dire warnings from what’s being billed as a
“bipartisan group” of government officials and election experts.

Today, the end is near. The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) warns
of an “alarming” election season marked by “illegal actions,”
defiance of the popular vote, “chaos and violence in the streets,”
federal seizure of mail-in ballots, “violent action,” and attempts
to “bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents,”
and pillage the Treasury.

These paranoid polemics are featured in an ostensibly non-partisan
report
[[link removed]],
“Preventing a Disputed Presidential Election and Transition,”
circulating widely among the Left as Election Day nears. The villain
of this set piece of course is Donald Trump.

The report can be read simply as an occasionally hilarious guide to
the Left’s id. After spending many pages trashing the president as a
violent racist democracy-stealing criminal and worst-person-ever, TIP
states that it “takes no position on how Americans should cast their
votes.”

But the document also provides some interesting clues about how the
Left would handle a close contest.

TIP said it engaged over 100 participants in a series of electoral war
games: four “2020 election crisis scenarios.” The four scenarios:
a race too tight to call on election night; a Biden popular vote and
Electoral College win by a big margin; a Trump win in the Electoral
College but a loss of the popular vote; and a Biden popular and
electoral win by a narrow margin.

The results of all four exercises were “alarming,” the report
says. President Trump is likely to “contest the result by both legal
and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.”

Forget about the courts. Never mind that the legal system is the
xxxxxx of our democratic process. TIP “intentionally did not game
legal strategies in any detail,” the reports says. That’s telling.

The TIP conclusions are dire. “A close and contested election may be
resolved through the exercise of power,” the report says. Trump
might call for recounts; launch investigations into disputed results;
halt mail-in ballots; “take to the streets;” and “rely on Fox
News and right-wing social media” to “facilitate the harassment
and bullying of election officials to cause chaos and delay.”
Election officials might be intimidated “into taking actions that
benefited Team Trump.” Republican-controlled state legislatures
might be coerced into installing Trump-friendly Electoral College
electors.

To counter these evil plans—of which by the way there is not a shred
of evidence outside the blusters of a famously blustery
president—Team Biden and its supporters should “take seriously the
notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle;
technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance about elites observing
norms are not the answer here.”

Biden-friendly congressional leaders should “seek advance assurances
from the military and agency heads about plans and conduct,” the
report says. “Military and law enforcement leaders need to be
particularly attuned to the possibility that partisan actors will seek
to manipulate or misuse their coercive powers for inappropriate
political ends.” Civil servants “should be educated about their
legal obligations to uphold the Constitution,” comrade. The media
should start preparing their Trump-steals-the-election stories in
advance. “Journalists and independent watchdogs can begin to
cultivate sources and research stories now so they are positioned to
sound the alarm.”

In summary—Trump bad, Biden good. Close election—stolen. Fight it
in the streets, not in the courts. Military, media, law enforcement,
civil servants—get on the right side, you have been warned.

The rest of us have been warned, too.

As always, we will be closely monitoring such antics as election day
approaches.

Until next week …



###




[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2020, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]