THREAD: Because through all the "memo" news and headlines, it's critical to remember why this issue is important and why it should matter to everyday Americans
What this issue is all about: whether the Department of Justice and FBI, under President Obama, abused their surveillance authority against American citizens and political opponents. Put another way: was the Obama DOJ weaponized to spy on the Trump campaign?
Remember, in general, the DOJ and FBI spying on American citizens should automatically be met with MAJOR skepticism. That's what the Fourth Amendment is designed to protect against. When those American citizens are ALSO political opponents? It should raise even more red flags.
So, take that principle, and look at what happened in this case. The DOJ spied on Carter Page, an American citizen. Red flag. Carter Page was also part of the Trump campaign. Double red flag. It should automatically raise questions.
Now, pause: we know about the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts, the "missing" texts, the McCabe concerns, etc. But this is about more. Focus on the dossier here--the political opposition research project put together by Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, and the DNC by extension.
Quite simply: This infamous "Russian Dossier" was unverified political opposition research paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. If the Department of Justice used information like that as a key part of getting a surveillance warrant, it would be a HUGE problem
Now, from what we've already known for months, it sure looks like that's exactly what happened: that the FBI used that very dossier to get a warrant. @Jim_Jordan asked the FBI about it 2 months ago. I asked too. We asked for the FISA application, and the FBI wouldn't show us.
We've asked repeatedly for information from the FBI, both privately and publicly. We've openly told FBI and DOJ officials--if we're wrong, tell us! Tell us what was in the FISA application. Let us see the document. But we've been stonewalled for almost a year.
So the bottom line is this: if, in 2016, the DOJ and FBI used an unverified, Clinton/DNC paid-for dossier to spy on American citizens (and political opponents) in the Trump campaign, that is as wrong as it gets.
If that happened, Americans deserve to know about it. Period.
I know we live in a hyper-partisan environment, and I know it can be easy to disregard any inquiry like this as party politics. I understand that.
But this is so far above politics, folks. Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Her scale is supposed to be balanced.
If any Department of Justice, Republican or Democrat, put their thumb on the scale for the sake of politics--it would undermine the very fabric of who we are as a nation. Americans deserve the truth, one way or the other.
Last point: If you remember anything from this news cycle, remember: your right as an American to privacy from your government spying on you is critical. It is foundational to who we are as a Republic. Never take that right for granted, no matter the political party you belong to
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A thought on impeachment: Democrats case has real gaps. The holes are blatant. Witnesses having no evidence. Firsthand witnesses who dispute the allegations. Etc.
For a situation like that, time is the Democrats’ worst enemy. Because there’s key questions they can’t answer.
An example: if there was a political bribery scheme going on, like Democrats say, how did it not come up ONCE in FIVE meetings between US-Ukraine over the relevant time period? That makes zero sense. You’re telling me Ukraine was extorted, and they never asked? Or mentioned it?
That’s just one example of plenty. Sondland is *central* to their case, for instance—cited 600+ times in their report. He’s admitted he has no evidence beyond assumptions. That’s their star witness. Huge problem.
THREAD: You will probably see plenty of spin and headlines today claiming the FBI is exonerated in this report. That is laughable, to put it lightly. The report eviscerates senior officials who broke rules and abused power.
Let's go over some of the details.
For starters, the "no bias" talking point you see is misdirection from the left. See this line, from the IG:
"Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation"
If you see someone harping on the "bias" point, they are giving you a broad, misapplied talking point to distract from the specifics within the IG report that are damning.
In case you were inclined to believe the Democrats' suggestion that their witnesses are unbiased, here's one of them—Noah Feldman—building the case for impeaching President Trump in April, 2017. Not even 3 months after inauguration.
The House Democrats' impeachment report is 300 pages of nonsense, with far too many problems to address individually. But let's go over a few of them...
1) Up front, Democrats released this report to the public around 2:00pm. Again, it's 300 pages. They're having the full Intelligence Committee vote on the report the same day... just a few hours later. Should be an automatic red flag.
2) Democrats claim @realDonaldTrump "demanded" Ukraine investigations. They build their case on this using Alexander Vindman, who said he interpreted the call this way too.
The "demand" characterization is ridiculous, for many reasons. @RepChrisStewart lays out a few.
You see a theme throughout these transcripts of the need to clean up corruption. Ambassador Yovanovitch laid it out: President Trump had a “deep rooted skepticism” about Ukraine corruption, and sending taxpayer funds to a corrupt nation.
She shared the concern on corruption
Gordon Sondland explained further: President Trump wanted Ukraine to root out corruption.
“I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing... to do what he ran on” (clean up corruption.)
Set aside the complete lack of a deliverable and the fact that Ukraine wasn't even aware aid was being withheld till later. The notion that this was some sort of political 'quid pro quo' is not backed up by the facts. It is nonsense.
It sure looks like James Comey misled Congress and the American people--at times under oath. Here are 5 questions Director Comey needs to answer. My op-ed-- washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds…
Question 1: Did Comey and his FBI improperly coordinate with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice during the height of the Clinton email investigation?
He denied any coordination under oath. Evidence suggests this is not true.
Question 2: Why did Comey leave out pertinent facts when he briefed then-President-elect Trump on the Russian dossier?
He told President-elect Trump nothing of Christopher Steele's credibility issues or of the dossier's origin as a Democrat paid-for campaign document