I don’t agree with Matt Taibbi about much, but he is a straight shooter. This is just a little taste. Click over for the whole thing. It is worth it.

MATT TAIBBI:

“…The report throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”…

…If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. Holy God, what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was…”

Original

Daniel McCarthy:

“…The impeachment fiasco is just the latest symptom. After weeks of testimony, Democrats have not been able to come up with any charges more concrete than ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of Congress.’ Abuse of power is certainly a serious thing — but only if it’s real. Partisans think that almost anything a president from the opposing party does amounts to an abuse of power. For impeachment to amount to anything more than partisan harassment, an actual crime ought to be found somewhere along the line: an act of wrongdoing objectively contrary to the law. Otherwise, any procedural or policy disagreement — or any pretext whatsoever — can be construed by a party out to get an enemy president as an ‘abuse of power.’…

…Democrats fell so far short of the mark of proving that bribery took place in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine that they dared not even make the accusation in their articles of impeachment. Instead, they used abuse of power simply to refer to actions they didn’t like, and they whipped up a new non-crime, ‘obstruction of Congress,’ in an act of desperation. But Trump’s refusal to let administration officials play along with the Democrats’ pantomime impeachment proceedings is simply a bold assertion of the Constitution’s separation of powers….”

Original

Impeachment Boomerang: Trump Beats Dems in Three States That Shattered Democrats in 2016

Related:

Report: Moderate House Dems Grow Increasingly Concerned About 2020 Reelection Chances Due to Impeachment Push

1) Key findings of Horowitz report:  Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a “low threshold” this is. Durham’s statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness.

2) The report is triumph for former House Intel Chair Devin Nunes, who first blew the whistle on FISA abuse. The report confirms all the elements of the February 2018 Nunes memo, which said dossier was as an “essential” part of applications, and FBI withheld info from FISA court.

3) Conversely, report is an excoriation of Adam Schiff and his “memo” of Feb 2018. That doc stated that “FBI and DOJ officials did NOT abuse the [FISA] process” or “omit material information.” Also claimed FBI didn’t much rely on dossier.

4) In fact, IG report says dossier played “central and essential role” in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.

5) Report is a devastating indictment of Steele, Fusion GPS and the “dossier.” Report finds that about the only thing FBI ever corroborated in that doc were publicly available times, places, title names. Ouch.

Original

More at link. Best summary I have seen.

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.”

I anticipate criminal charges against multiple individuals resulting from the Durham Investigation.

JEFF CARLSON:

“…The focus of the IG Report was abuse of the FISA process and the findings of the IG show numerous problems with the actions by FBI agents in obtaining the FISA warrant used to spy on Trump 2016 presidential campaign adviser Carter Page.

All told, the IG identified “at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures.”

Although many media organizations are trying to focus on the IG’s finding that the FBI was within its rights in opening the initial July 31, 2016, counterintelligence investigation, it should be noted that this was not the focus of the IG’s investigation. This matter was addressed by the IG on the very first page of his report:

“Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation.”

However, Horowitz did note that he had material concerns about the FBI’s legal ability to open an investigation into the campaign of a presidential candidate: “We were concerned to find that neither the AG [attorney general] Guidelines nor the DIOG [FBI’s Domestic Investigations Operations Guide] contain a provision requiring Department consultation before opening an investigation such as the one here involving the alleged conduct of individuals associated with a major party presidential campaign.”

The IG report highlighted several different areas of misconduct and identified a number of errors and findings…

…The Inspector General’s report stated that it concluded that the failures described in the report “represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications.”…

…“That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process.”

“We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliability of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not.”

The IG report noted that “this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command.”…”

Original

I anticipate criminal charges from the Durham Investigation. That is when the action starts. The Horowitz Report is weak soup.

JONATHAN TURLEY:

“…The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.

Horowitz did say that the original decision to investigate was within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department. That standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring “articulable facts.” He said that, since this is a low discretionary standard, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start. United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the usual step of issuing a statement that he did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion at the beginning of the investigation.

Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. Nevertheless, the Justice Department has a standard requiring the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it is the campaign of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.

This is akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage. The question is what occurred when icebergs began appearing. Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared very early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but also removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course…

…Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress…”

Original

What’s Going on With Drudge? Rasmussen Claims ‘Matt’s Not There Anymore…Word Is He Sold’

John Hinderaker:

“…That’s what the London Times calls the explosive Labour Party files on anti-Semitism that, having been leaked, have now been reviewed by the newspaper. The rank instances of anti-Semitism exhibited by Labour members of Parliament, and the party’s weak response thereto, are shocking:

The secret files, seen by this paper, reveal the party is still overwhelmed with complaints about anti-Jewish racism that have been left unresolved for months or years. Most have resulted in lenient punishments or no sanctions, according to the documents, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign claims of zero tolerance.
***
In a leaked audio recording from the party’s disciplinary committee in late October, a Labour official complains that more than 130 cases remain outstanding even though the “vast majority” were reported to the party 18 months ago. One unresolved case had been on Labour’s books for more than three years, according to the recording.
***
One Labour member from Nottingham wrote that “Jews represent a viral infection that need to be completely eliminated” and said he wanted the “complete extinction of all Jews”. It took more than 10 months for the party to expel him after his case was first reported in 2018.
***
Another member was allowed to stay in the party after allegedly confronting a veteran councillor at a Labour meeting and shouting that he “licked the bum of Jews for money”.
***
The secret files show half of 100 anti-semitism cases between last summer and this May involved a warning or no action at all. Some members were told to attend “diversity training” although Labour has not set up such a scheme despite promising to do so.

Other members were let off without punishment this year despite posting comments about Holocaust denial and distortion, sharing articles about “a Jewish agenda to obtain the conquest of the gentile world” and saying it was justified to “have a dim view of the Jews”.
***
A Labour member from Birmingham was subject to a complaint after posting on Facebook that the Red Sea was the “ideal destination” to get rid of the Jews “who are a cancer on us all” before adding, “no need for gas chambers anyway gas is so expensive and we need it in England”. It took eight months for him to be expelled from the party after he was suspended by Labour last year.

Another female member based in East Sussex described Sajid Javid, the chancellor, as a “treacherous choc ice” for making comments that were supportive of Israel. She is said to have resigned from the party before a hearing could take place.

Other Labour members’ posts include claims that: “IRA murderers took their cue from Jews”; Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks; and the family of the former Jewish Labour MP Margaret Hodge were “rancid and “all in it together . . . the family of Israel”.

Jeremy Corbyn has claimed that Labour members responsible for anti-Semitism have been “suspended or expelled” from the party, but the leaked files show Corbyn’s assertion to be false.

Why has Labour been so reluctant to deal with widespread, virulent anti-Semitism among its members of Parliament? In part, I suppose, because Jeremy Corbyn shares their prejudice. His hatred of Israel and his tolerance toward Islamic terrorism suggest that conclusion. Beyond that, anti-Semitism is more common on the left than on the right in the U.K., as it is in the U.S. Many Labourites are, evidently, untroubled by anti-Semitism.

Labour leaders are fretting that the release of these documents in the last days of the election campaign will damage their party’s chances, with the Tories already leading by eight to ten points in most polls. Let’s hope they are right. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has released a proposal for sensible post-Brexit immigration reform, fast-tracking skilled immigrants while not allowing permanent residency to unskilled immigrants. Such a plan no doubt commands majority support in the U.K., as it would in the U.S. if plainly put on the table. That, too, should bolster the Conservatives’ chances…”

Original

PAUL MIRENGOFF:

“…In both its news and opinion sections, the Washington Post has been beating the drum for impeaching President Trump. However, two op-eds in today’s paper, both by writers with a strong aversion to Trump, are unimpressed with the case for impeachment. The op-eds are good evidence that the impeachment process isn’t playing out the way Democrats had hoped it would.

Kathleen Parker, a moderate, argues with “disappointment” that the case for impeachment simply isn’t there. David Von Drehle, a liberal, doesn’t take a position on the merits. His concern is with the futility of impeachment proceedings, which he seems to believe will redound to President Trump’s advantage.

Von Drehle is critical of both Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. He complains that Schiff, in his rush to impeach, hasn’t done enough to develop the evidence in favor of this measure. For example, Schiff has been unwilling to use the courts.

Nadler draws fire from Von Drehle for using law professors to try to advance the impeachment ball — a move that he says cannot have changed a single American mind. Von Drehle ridicules, as I did, professor Michael Gerhardt’s claim that “if what we’re talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.”

Nothing?

This offense that House Democrats can’t be bothered to fully investigate, can’t be troubled to thoroughly document, can’t discipline themselves to coil into a mortal blow — this is the very worst thing any president could conceivably do? No crime will ever be impeachable unless this halfhearted mess is seen through to defeat?

Gerhardt’s statement is the sort of vacuous hyperbole people fall back on to prepare themselves for a wasteful gesture. We must do this thing because really, we have no choice. The sacrifice will be rewarded in the sweet by and by. You either nod along, or you think critically; you can’t do both. And once you’ve accepted the professor’s assertion that Schiff’s committee has fully nailed down the most egregious crime any president could commit, the rest is fated. Like a soldier in the trenches of World War I, you just hope your death is made more glorious by its tragic inevitability.

I disagree with Von Drehle to the extent he thinks that the impeachment proceedings are playing into Trump’s hands. My view has been that impeachment will either have no impact on the election or will have a slightly negative effect on Trump’s prospects.

But after listening to the law professors last week, I can understand why Von Drehle, from his anti-Trump perspective, is worried…”

Original

SHARYL ATTKISSON:

“…My own take is that both parties don’t know exactly what to make of Horowitz. Depending on who’s the target of his scrutiny, one side likes him because, often, he doesn’t entirely let the bad guys off the hook. The other side likes him because, often, he doesn’t go too far or too high up in assigning blame. From a political standpoint, that’s a win-win. People are sort of held accountable — but not too accountable. It’s pretty safe…”

Original

A good summary of the impeachment farce and historical precedents. Worth clicking over.

Victor Davis Hanson:

“…From now on, impeachment can be used against any first-term president with a record of success. It will be used solely as a political strategy by the opposition party that controls the House to weaken a president’s reelection chances. That’s the Democratic Party’s legacy and Democrats will live to rue it…”

Original

“…US President Donald Trump on Friday (Dec 6) called for the World Bank to stop loaning money to China, one day after the institution adopted a lending plan to Beijing over Washington’s objections.

The World Bank on Thursday adopted a plan to aid China with US$1 billion (S$1.36 billion) to US$1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025. The plan calls for lending to “gradually decline” from the previous five-year average of US$1.8 billion.

“Why is the World Bank loaning money to China? Can this be possible? China has plenty of money, and if they don’t, they create it. STOP!” Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.

“World Bank lending to China has fallen sharply and will continue to reduce as part of our agreement with all our shareholders including the United States,” the World Bank said in an e-mailed statement to Reuters.

“We eliminate lending as countries get richer.”…”

Original

Don Surber:

“…The big news on Friday evening is that Democrat leaders are not pushing House members to vote for impeachment.

Now it could be Nancy has the 218 votes she needs and is allowing some congressmen in tough races next fall to punt.

But I don’t see it. I do not see Democrats being suicidal over President Donald John Trump. Plus Clyburn’s words undercut the Democrats’ self-righteous call to impeach.

Clyburn told CNN, “This is a vote of conscience. I do believe that when it comes to something as divisive as impeachment, we have to leave members up to their own consciences, their own constituents, and what they think is in the best interest of their love for country.

“And so, I think it would be a bit unseemly for us to go out whipping up a vote on something like this. This is too serious, this is too much about preserving this great Republic.”

But if it is “about preserving this great Republic,” then Clyburn is under a moral obligation to press for Democrats to toe the line.

Does he not care enough “about preserving this great Republic” to lobby for impeachment?

Clyburn said, “If we cannot vote to impeach with what we had in testimonies last week and what we’ve seen in news reports this week, then we ought to just modify the Constitution and get rid of impeachment altogether.”

That may not be such a bad idea.

Or at least preserve impeachment for an actual crime.

Conventional wisdom in DC is Democrats will impeach and Republicans will acquit.

But Clyburn does not think it is important enough to twist arms to get it to pass. At best that is a mixed message…”

Original

Karl Rove:

“…There’s growing concern among Democrats that their July 2020 convention in Milwaukee could open without a candidate who receives a majority of the vote on the first ballot. The last time that happened to the Democrats was 1952…

…Going into the Super Tuesday contests on March 3, Mr. Biden would have 61 delegates, Ms. Warren 37, Mr. Sanders 31 and Mr. Buttigieg 26…

…Strange things happen at contested conventions. At the last such Democratic confab in 1952, the nominee was neither the front-runner, Sen. Estes Kefauver, nor Vice President Alben Barkley, ostensibly supported by President Harry S. Truman. Instead, on the third ballot, Democrats nominated Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson II.

Party elders felt that only Stevenson could keep Northern and Southern Democrats united, and had tried unsuccessfully to draft him to run. Only after a platform fight about civil rights; a disastrous meeting between Mr. Barkley and labor leaders; and wrangling over a loyalty oath aimed at Southern Democrats that threatened to fracture the party, as happened in 1948, did Stevenson reluctantly agree to run. Truman then arrived in Chicago and ordered some of the candidates out of the contest and favorite-son delegations to swing to the Illinois governor. The party left largely unified and mostly happy.

It is hard to see any of the Democratic ex-presidents playing Truman’s calming role in 2020. Instead, Democrats could be in for a rocky convention, featuring back-room deals and horse trades that anger and fracture the party…”

Original