1) BREAKING, per @CBS_Herridge and extraordinary.
So Christopher Steele's main source for the dossier? He was the subject of a nearly two-year long FBI counter-intel investigation (2009-2011), under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a "threat to national security."
2) Early in Obama admin, subsource "reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor" to Obama. Said if they got jobs in the administration and access to classified information, he could help them "make a little extra money."
3) FBI says he had previously contact with the Russian Embassy and Russian intelligence officers. Thanks to @paulsperry_ we know the name of this subsource, and that he for a period at this time at Brookings, Democratic think tank.
4) But here's the real kicker, per these documents out from @LindseyGrahamSC The FBI KNEW about this prior CI investigation into the source in DECEMBER OF 2016. It KNEW it was relying on information from a suspected Russian spy!
5) The same FBI said to be concerned about Russian interference in election, was using information from a suspected Russian spy to probe a presidential campaign. The same FBI claiming Carter Page a Russian agent, was making that case based on info from a suspected Russia agent.
6) Most importantly: It never told the FISA court about this CI investigation. It withheld that information and continued re-upping its applications to surveil Page and the campaign. It vouched for information supplied by a suspected Russian agent.
7) The name of this subsource, and the realization of the FBI's prior suspicions, should have ended the entire probe. Instead the FBI doubled down, hid things from the court, kept going. This again raises urgent need to know who knew what, and when.
8) And people wonder why #Durham is looking into all this?
Also, extra-credit question: Wasn't it Mueller's job to find sources of Russian disinformation? How do you miss the guy potentially feeding it directly to the FBI?
9) Finally, big credit here to AG Bill Barr and @LindseyGrahamSC for their commitment to truth and transparency. Americans deserve to know what happened before they vote.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. This "omnibus" is one of the ugliest, least transparent bits of lawmaking I've ever seen--and that's saying something. It isn't just the spending, though the new domestic numbers are gross, given the trillions spent in the past few years.
2. It's also that Congress, in a new trick, is attaching dozens of pieces of stand-alone legislation to this--retirement changes; public lands management; healthcare policy; cosmetics regulation; electoral count act changes; horseracing rules.
3. Every one deserves a full debate and a roll call vote, so that Americans can see where their representatives stand. Instead, this monstrosity is cooked in a back room, and members can claim they had no choice but to vote against a shutdown--ducking accountability.
The GOP choice: Make way for a new generation of winning leaders, or stick with a guy who keeps losing Republicans key elections. wsj.com/articles/donal… via @WSJ
2) For those saying Trump wasn't on the ballot, c'mon. He was definitive in candidates chosen for major races who got trounced/beat. Bolduc/Oz/Dixon/Michels/Mastriano. The rallies clearly didn't help--tho might have hurt.
3) For those saying this is because McConnell/SLF didn't do enough, c'mon. SLF poured millions in to Trump candidates in Senate races-PA/NH/AZ/GA. $30 million in Ohio alone. One reason Vance won is because DeWine won by huge margin and pulled along voters.
1) The comment section for this piece is clocking a lot of liberal pushback, and their arguments provide great insight as to why the left likes this system..... wsj.com/articles/the-r… via @WSJ
2) It basically goes like this (I will decode): Our current two-party primary/election system is turning out "radicals" (ie, conservatives) that are bad for society (ie, liberal causes)....
3) Therefore we the people (ie, liberals funding these ranked choice initiatives) will impose upon all of you a voting system that guarantees more "moderate" "consensus" candidates (ie, politicians more likely to do what we on the left would like.)
1) I see @Liz_Cheney retweeted this. Someone ought to ask her how a conservative can justify a committee plan to rifle through the emails/voicemails/texts/calls of private citizens, including her colleagues--without giving them opportunity to litigate.
2) Last I knew, principled conservatives had issues with government that thinks it has a limitless right to secretly spy on its citizens--depriving them of the right to contest in court. Remember the whole FISA/Carter Page thing?
3) At least when Schiff pulled his secret subpoena stunt, he mainly obtained metadata--what phone number called what phone number, and when. The Jan. 6 snoops have asked companies to preserve a stunning amount of text/email/voicemail info, over a 10-month period.
2) The Jan. 6 Committee hardly has an obvious right to this information. We have laws protecting American privacy. I know it is asking a lot that reporters should do their homework, but they can start with this statute, 47 USC 222.
3) That law does allow telcos to release information when required by "law," but it is far from clear the Committee meets this test. Just last year the DC circuit threw into doubt whether House even has the power to enforce subpoenas.
2) The piece asserted that Mr. Johnson’s “drumbeat of distortions, false theories and lies reminds some Wisconsin Republicans” of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It then quoted Sensenbrenner saying McCarthy's name.
3) But Sensenbrenner never said Johnson was like McCarthy. He’d made a general point about Wisconsin’s love of mavericks (he also talked about Dem Sen. Bill Proxmire--tho Times filed to mention that), and noted its voters appreciate that Johnson “thinks outside the box.”