Where the Hell Is John Durham?

Trump has every right to be enraged that four years after Barack Obama’s top henchmen concocted and executed the biggest political scandal of all time, not one person has been held criminally responsible while trials against his associates drag on.

In May 2019, Attorney General William Barr made an announcement millions of Americans had been waiting for: A U.S. attorney outside the Beltway would investigate the corrupt origins of the FBI’s probe into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and government efforts to sabotage the incoming president after he was elected.

For the past 14 months, we have been waiting (impatiently, I confess) for news from John Durham, the Connecticut prosecutor Barr tapped to lead the long-delayed inquiry. After all, by the time the attorney general initiated the targeted probe, there was plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by top officials in the Obama Administration, including James Comey, John Brennan, and Andrew McCabe among others. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had wrapped up his two-year partisan witch hunt and despite unlimited resources—along with the unflinching support of Republicans on Capitol Hill—Barack Obama’s former FBI director could find no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

But Mueller did plenty of damage in the interim. Just weeks after his May 2017 appointment, Mueller started rounding up Trump associates: George Papadopoulos was arrested at Dulles Airport in July 2017 on a concocted charge. A few months later, Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, was arrested; Lt. General Michael Flynn finally relented to a plea deal for which he still hasn’t been sentenced. (The judge in the case is refusing to drop the charges against Flynn, per the government’s request.) All that and more happened within the first six months of Mueller’s investigation.

Yet Durham has produced nothing for public consumption.

In an interview last month, Barr said there might finally be some news in the next month or so. “[Durham] is pressing ahead as hard as he can, I expect we will have some developments hopefully by the end of this summer,” Barr told Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo on June 21. “His investigation will continue, it’s not going to stop because of the election. What happens after the election will depend on who wins the election.”

In other words, the clock is ticking—and Barr knows it.

A Post-Election Announcement?

On Thursday, hope for a pre-election resolution took a big hit when Fox News reported that if Durham can’t finish his work in the next several weeks, he will “punt it until after the election,” one unnamed source disclosed.

In some respects, it might already be too late for Durham to present a case that’s legitimate in the eyes of the public. Obamagate continues to be of intense interest to Trump’s base but it could be considered old news by most Americans. Further, Democrats and the media have waged full-out war on the attorney general, attempting to discredit Barr as a Trump lackey doing the president’s political bidding. Indictments announced even this summer undoubtedly will be condemned as attempted election interference, and it’ll be hard to dispute that claim at this late date.

So, what in the world is taking so long?

Yes, the coronavirus crisis slowed all court proceedings and investigative work. But it’s hard to understand why clear-cut evidence of criminal misconduct hasn’t been enough to justify a single indictment so far. The report issued by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz outlined extensive instances of abuse of power, including false presentations to a secret court. One FBI lawyer intentionally doctored evidence. More than three years ago, former Obama officials leaked classified information to the media, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Those suspects have never been identified let alone charged with a crime.

Former CIA Director John Brennan told Congress the infamous Steele dossier wasn’t used as back-up material for his damning Intelligence Community Assessment that claimed the Russians meddled in the election to help Trump win. That, according to Horowitz’s report, was a lie.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe admitted lying to federal investigators under oath three times, yet he’s a free man and a CNN contributor.

Former FBI Director James Comey and his top gang—including McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page—long ago should have been charged with conspiracy against the United States for masterminding the entire Russian collusion hoax and foisting it on the American people for nearly three years.

There’s more low-hanging fruit. Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson was representing a Russian businessman before the Justice Department while seeding the bogus Steele dossier to that same agency and to the American news media but has never been charged with a foreign lobbying violation. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) repeatedly lied about evidence of Russian collusion, including in a February 2018 memo addressed to his House colleagues, but never has been charged with lying to Congress.

In fact, nearly every Obamagate perpetrator misled the American people about Russian collusion but, as Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) pointed out, they told much different stories to Congress behind closed doors.

“Guilty As Hell, Nothing Happens”

It appears Trump, like his supporters, are fed up with the delays and inaction.

The president lashed out Thursday in a series of tweets blasting the “totally corrupt” Obama administration and the inept overseers of justice. “This crime was taking place even before my election, everyone knows it, and yet all are frozen stiff with fear,” Trump raged. “No Republican Senate Judiciary response, NO ‘JUSTICE,’ NO FBI, NO NOTHING. Major horror show REPORTS on Comey & McCabe, guilty as hell, nothing happens. Catch Obama & Biden cold, nothing.”

Hard to argue with that. Ironically, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) last week expressed the same frustration with Durham’s probe. The former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, now led by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whined on Twitter that it would be “SAD SAD” if there were no indictments related to the scandal until after the election.

That’s awfully rich coming from Grassley. As chairman of the committee in charge of overseeing the Justice Department, Grassley did little but write letters for two years. Senate Republicans knew in early 2017 that the Steele dossier was opposition research paid for by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign but backed Mueller’s witch hunt anyway. While Nunes and House Republicans did the heavy lifting and took the shots, Senate Republicans dithered.

Graham is performing no better than Grassley, despite months of threats. Graham, too, is permitting Obamagate conspirators to testify in private rather than forcing them to come clean with Americans in an open hearing. After finally convincing his Republican-controlled committee to approve a weak resolution authorizing subpoenas for about 50 Obamagate perps, Graham has only questioned Bruce Ohr, a Justice Department official friendly with Christopher Steele, whose wife worked on the anti-Trump project for Fusion GPS behind closed doors.

Trump has every right to be enraged that four years after Barack Obama’s top henchmen concocted and executed the biggest political scandal of all time, not one person has been held criminally responsible while trials against his associates drag on.

Further, the president been betrayed by the leadership of his own party. It was a matter of nanoseconds after Democrats took control of the House before they leveraged every ounce of their new power to savage Trump and Republicans. Republicans, on the other hand, have sat “frozen stiff” while wielding powerful gavels and making empty promises. (I wrote a partial list of the Senate GOP’s failures here.)

Something could change in the next week or so but for now, between Trump’s tweets and Fox News reporting on a possible delay until November, it looks more and more like justice for Trump—and the country—will be denied.


Conflicting Reports: John Durham May or May Not Wait Until After Election to Bring Indictments

U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly feeling pressure to wrap up his investigation into the origins of the Russia probe by the end of the summer, but because his work is ongoing, he may wait until after the election to reveal his findings to avoid looking political.

Investigative journalist John Solomon, meanwhile, is reporting that he has personally seen “a lot of activity” in Durham’s investigation that suggest indictments could come as soon as Labor Day.

After the Mueller investigation flamed out in April of 2019, Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham to investigate the shady origins of the FBI’s Russia probe, which lasted from July 2016, until the appointment of Mueller in May 2017.

Two sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News that Durham is “working expeditiously” and feels “it’s critical” to do a thorough job.

Two sources familiar with Durham’s investigation told Fox News this week that Durham is working expeditiously to try to finish the probe by the end of summer, but that several lines of investigation are not yet complete.

“He believes it’s critical to do them,” one source said. “He is feeling more pressure to get this done and wrapped up.”

The source also told Fox News that Durham “does not want this to be viewed political,” and the closer it gets to November, Durham could “punt it to after the election.”

Conservative legal eagle Undercover Huber reacted to this news on Twitter. “A Biden administration will fire every US attorney on day one, especially John Durham,” he tweeted. “If his investigation doesn’t produce results before the election, it never will.”

Undercover Huber went on to point out that the Mueller probe yielded almost instantaneous results, as opposed to the more sluggish Durham probe.

President Trump angrily lashed out on Twitter Thursday morning, in response to two Supreme Court rulings dealing with subpoenas for his tax records, and also apparently in response to rumors that Durham will punt on indictments until after election day.

Quoting Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo who questioned why there have been no consequences for the “Biggest political scandal of our time,” Trump replied: “You are 100% correct, Maria, it is a disgrace that nothing happens. Obama and Biden spied on my campaign, AND GOT CAUGHT…BUT NOTHING!”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley first signaled that results of the probe might be delayed on Twitter earlier this week.

“IF NO PROSECUTIONS TIL AFTER ELECTIONS SAD SAD //just think Flynn Mueller Impeachment/ The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes/Durham shld be producing some fruit of his labor,” Grassley said.


However, Attorney General William Barr last month told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo that Durham’s investigation of the Russia probe’s origins will likely yield “developments” before summer is over.

“You know, he’s pressing ahead as hard as he can. And I expect that, you know, we will have some developments hopefully before the end of the summer,” Barr said.

Investigative reporter John Solomon said Wednesday night that Republicans are getting frustrated with the pace of the Durham probe because “there is overwhelming evidence now in the public record now that crimes were committed inside the Russia investigation.”

Solomon lamented that no one has been brought to justice even though crimes such as “falsification of documents, false testimony, false representations before the FISA court” were committed by various SpyGate actors.

However, Solomon said he has personally seen “a lot of activity” in Durham’s investigation that suggest indictments are forthcoming.

“My sources tell me there’s a lot of activity. I’m seeing, personally, activity behind the scenes showing the Department of Justice is trying to bring those first indictments,” Solomon said during an interview with Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network.

“And I would look for a time around Labor Day to see the first sort of action by the Justice Department.”

When asked if he believes indictments are coming, Solomon replied that he’s seen “a lot of activity consistent with building prosecutions and preparing for criminal plea bargains.”

He went on to note that that doesn’t mean it [prosecutions] will happen. “Until they bring it before the grand jury you never know if it’s going to happen. I’m seeing activity consistent with that,” he explained.

Solomon also said that sources his sources have told him that the grand jury process was slowed down due to the Coronavirus complications.

“But everything I’m seeing on the ground … suggests that there’s an ongoing criminal investigation intent on bringing indictments and possibly plea bargains,” he said.

Durham’s team includes a number of federal prosecutors, including Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri who was tapped by the DOJ in February to review the case against Michael Flynn. In May, Barr also tapped U.S. Attorney for Western Texas John Bash to launch a more focused review on the process of unmasking.

According to Fox, “the pattern of conduct Durham is investigating includes misrepresentations made to the FISA court to obtain warrants to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page.”

Last month, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who oversaw the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller — testified that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal application for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about since-revealed “significant errors” in in the document.

Mueller’s investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, though the question of whether Trump obstructed justice was left open in the final report.

The Justice Department also revealed that Durham, himself, is investigating the unmasking of Trump campaign associates as part of his broader review. That line of investigation was confirmed after Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made public a list of Obama officials who purportedly requested to “unmask” the identity of Michael Flynn, who at the time was Trump’s incoming national security adviser.

Earlier this year, Barr threw cold water on the idea that the former president and vice president could be indicted, saying: “not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime.”

“As for President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement based on what I know, I don’t expect Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr said. “Our concern of potential criminality is focused on others.”



A Coup Against Our Institutions

The systematic campaign to undermine an incoming presidential administration through politicized investigations is a true constitutional crisis.

Matthew Spalding, a scholar of the Constitution and dean of Hillsdale College’s Van Andel Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., has written an important essay on the troubling possibility that the treatment of General Michael Flynn by the Obama administration and, later, by holdovers in the FBI, the Justice Department, and the CIA, represents not just a personal disaster for Flynn—who was, for a week or so, President Trump’s national security advisor—but also a brewing constitutional crisis for the United States.

Many commentators, myself included, have described the whole “Donald-Trump-was-a-Russian-Asset” caper as the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. We were ridiculed or condemned by the Left and the NeverTrump fraternity alleged to be on the Right for saying that, but time has proven us right. We were right, too, that this scandal was less a “hoax,” as it was sometimes called, than an attempted, if slow-motion, coup. It was an attempted coup because it aimed to disrupt the peaceful transition of presidential power from one administration, and one party, to another.

That sounds pretty dramatic, I know—aren’t “coups” things that happen in South American banana republics, not the United States? But as I wrote in May 2019, “coup” 

accurately expresses the deliberate effort by actors in the Obama Administration, including by President Obama himself, to assure Hillary Clinton’s victory by destroying the reputation of Donald Trump. “Most Presidents leave office,” the commentator L. J. Keith recently wrote, “and essentially step back from public life. Not Barack Obama. Shellshocked by Hillary Clinton’s loss, Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Clinton set in motion a series of events that will forever tar his presidency, and decimate the concept of a peaceful transition of power.”

I returned to Keith’s point last September, noting that “the Obama administration’s actions threatened not just Trump and his presidency, but the very processes and protocols by which the peaceful transition of power has been effected in the United States.”

This troubling truth is Spalding’s theme, and he brings together the threads of the argument in masterly fashion. 

As the cocoon of deep-state lies surrounding Michael Flynn has unravelled, we can see the extent to which he stands at the very origin of the attempted coup against Donald Trump. The Russian-born historian Svetlana Lokhova, a British citizen who met Flynn at a conference dinner in 2014, was smeared by the Obama operative Stefan Halper as Flynn’s mistress who was taking orders from the Kremlin. It was a complete and vicious fabrication, every piece of it, as Lokhova shows in her new book Spygate Exposed. Lokhova, in fact, was the only relevant Russian in the whole “Russian collusion” fantasy, and it turns out that she was totally innocent of the accusations made against her, just as was Flynn. 

But while the case of Michael Flynn stands at the beginning of the multi-pronged attack against Trump and his administration, the effort by the FBI to frame Flynn is only one piece in a much more complex puzzle. 

As Spalding observes, what happened to Michael Flynn was part of a much bigger initiative, namely a “systematic campaign to undermine an incoming presidential administration through politicized investigations.” And this, Spalding notes, is not just “another political scandal, but threatens a true constitutional crisis.”

Flynn’s treatment by the Obama administration’s FBI and DOJ seems to be a case study in how administrative elites, charged with executing the law, undermined the very rule of law. Our country was founded on fundamental republican principles: equal rights, individual liberty, and the consent of the governed. These sacred rights are secured, protected, and perpetuated by our civilization’s greatest political achievement: the constitutional rule of law. And while often taken for granted, the peaceful and unobstructed transition of power from one presidential administration to the next, frequently from the control of one political party to its political opposition, is the crown jewel of the American constitutional system.

Nota bene “the peaceful and unobstructed transition of power from one presidential administration to the next. . . is the crown jewel of the American constitutional system.”

“Is” or “was”? 

Spalding rehearses the course of events surrounding Flynn, from the opening of a counter-intelligence investigation on the basis of no legitimate predicate (the pretext was a congeries of sordid rumors assembled by an anti-Trump Brit named Christopher Steele and commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign) to the deliberate entrapment of Flynn by the FBI in January 2017. 

As Spalding notes, each of the moves against Flynn is disturbing in its own right. But taken together, they reveal a “pattern of politicizing the legal process to subvert the outcome of our electoral system.” 

Among much else that can be said about the mobilization of the machinery of government against a duly elected president of the United States, it is impossible to overlook the matter of precedent. It happened once. What is to stop it from happening again? 

“If it is appropriate,” Spalding asks, “for one political party, having lost an election, to use the authority of government outside of the bounds of the law against their opponents who have won that election, what is to stop the next political party from doing the same?”

I frankly do not think that we have a convincing answer to that question. And this brings Spalding to his troubling conclusion. 

To circumvent or undermine a valid election denies the legitimacy and sovereignty of popular rule. What appears to have been done to Mr. Flynn and the incoming Trump administration at the hands of the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration may seem merely another partisan squabble but is ultimately a rejection of republican government. 

The possibility of that rejection is the issue behind the issue with which we must conjure. 

The covert deployment of sundry aspects of governmental power, from actors deep within our intelligence services, to high-ranking bureaucrats in the Executive Branch, is troubling not because it was directed at Donald Trump. It is troubling because this extraordinary and nearly monolithic effort at repudiation has had as its target not just the “bad orange man” Trump but the very authority of the political institutions he represents by virtue of having been elected president in a free, open, and democratic election. 

The campaign against Donald Trump has involved every department of the so-called deep state and the myriad cultural institutions—the media, academia, Hollywood, the art world—which nourish it and impart legitimacy to it. To date, the coup against this president seems to have failed. But it seems to me less certain that an interior coup, a coup against our fundamental allegiance to democratic institutions, has not already taken place and succeeded. 


Obama and his Gang of Untouchables

In Washington Obama is feared, not loved; no one dares to cross him. It’s the Chicago Way.

In the 1987 classic “The Untouchables,” federal crime fighters take on legendary mafioso Al Capone and the Chicago mob during the Prohibition era. At the time, Capone controlled every power base in the city—from local newspapers to sitting judges. The film spawned a famous line—“he pulls a knife, you pull a gun”—from the scene where Sean Connery’s character explained how to overcome Capone and his thugs.

The term “The Untouchables” referred not to the Chicago mafia but to Eliot Ness’ incorruptible gang of cops. In the Obama era, however, that term is flipped on its head. It applies to the former president himself and his own sort of mob—a broad syndicate of henchmen, including corrupt cops, who continue to serve their Don and enrich themselves in the process. Barack Obama still calls the shots and pulls the strings while his goombahs in the news media, federal government, and Democratic Party carry out his orders. 

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in 2008, cribbing Connery’s line, during his first campaign for president. It was a warning that the Chicago-machine raised politician would use any weapon at his disposal to defeat his foes—which is exactly what he did.

And it’s the reason why to this day, Obama and his consigliere, Joe Biden, escape any culpability for the biggest shakedown in U.S. political history—the attempted hit on Donald Trump. After getting away with what would have been presidency-ending scandals for anyone else—illegal gun-running in Mexico, intimidating Tea Party activists with the IRS, shipping billions to Iranian mullahs, and lying about a terrorist attack to avoid losing re-election—Obama and Biden knew they could pull off one more caper. But this time, Obama’s lackeys didn’t just ignore or excuse his bad behavior, they were in on it. Now they are trying to hide the evidence.

Despite a steady flow of evidence confirming that Obama’s White House directed the operation to infiltrate, spy on, and sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign and then employ those same forces against Trump after he won, the media refuses to report any of it. Notes released this week once again reveal that the targeting of Lt. General Michael Flynn, Trump’s incoming security advisor, was openly discussed during a high-level Oval Office meeting in early January 2017 with Obama, Biden, James Comey, Susan Rice, and Sally Yates.

The notes, apparently transcribed by disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok based on a debriefing with Comey after the January 5, 2017 meeting, indicate Obama wanted to make sure the “right people” would investigate Flynn. (The 3-star general was one of four Americans investigated by Comey’s FBI for imaginary “collusion” with Russia to influence the 2016 election.) Biden apparently jumped in with the idea of using the Logan Act as a pretext to pursue criminal charges against Flynn, a one-time Obama administration intelligence chief. (Biden’s name also appeared on a declassified list of people who requested the unmasking of Flynn’s name in intelligence reports.)

This is just the latest tidbit tying the former president and the current Democratic candidate for president to the framing of Flynn. The notes also contradict claims by both Obama and Biden about their involvement in federal investigations. In an April 2016 interview, Obama claimed he did not speak to FBI directors about “pending investigations.” But the report issued last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general revealed that Comey told Obama in August 2016 about Crossfire Hurricane, the official name of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. That meeting, according to Comey’s testimony to Michael Horowitz, also included Rice, John Brennan, and James Clapper.

So, it’s clear that on at least two occasions, President Obama and his FBI director discussed the investigation into Trump and his associates. That bombshell is not hearsay or a Deep State “conspiracy theory” or the delusions of Fox News hosts; it has been confirmed by Obama’s closest aides. (In her congressional testimony, Sally Yates disclosed that Comey brought up the Logan Act.)

Further, Biden has denied any knowledge about the Flynn case. Biden told ABC News’ George Stephanopolous last month that he knew “nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.” His denials have been preposterous all along; the vice president attended secret meetings led by former CIA director John Brennan in the White House Situation Room months before the election while Team Obama crafted the Russian collusion hoax.

But Biden, safely ensconced in his basement in Delaware, hasn’t fielded any tough questions about his central role in the scandal. Stephanopoulos’ interview was the only effort by any journalist to confront Biden; even when he was on the campaign trail, not one reporter asked Biden the question of the ages: What did he know and when did he know it?

For his part, Obama remains ensconced in his Washington, D.C. mansion, just a few miles from the studios and offices of every major news organization, yet not one journalist in the past three years has dared to stand outside Obama’s home—the “shadow White House,” Lee Smith calls it—demanding that he set the record straight. In any other political time, a massive scandal that touched both the former president and a candidate for president would have the world of journalism on fire. Reporters and editors would be clawing each other’s eyeballs out for a new scoop, shoving microphones in the face of every Obama/Biden friend and confidant, seeking statements from former Democratic Party officials and officeholders and donors.

Of course, that’s not the case today. Instead of facing tough inquiries about these new disclosures, the coosome twosome appeared together in a “virtual fundraiser” this week; Obama rambled about his reverence for the “rule of law” and American institutions. “What we have seen over the last couple of years is a White House…that sees the Justice Department as simply an extension and an arm of the personal concerns of the president,” Obama said, referring to Attorney General William Barr.

Got that? Trump’s Justice Department, not Obama’s, is a corrupt fiefdom that targets the president’s enemies. Obama can get away with that accusation, and no one in Washington balks, because he remains untouchable. Obama is feared, not loved; no one dares to cross him. That approach, to borrow another line from “The Untouchables,” is the Chicago Way. Given current political and cultural realities, however, it is unlikely that Obama’s day of reckoning will ever arrive as Capone’s did.

Elections • Post

Ben Sasse Rescues Obamagate Conspirators

After winning his Republican primary last month, Sasse is back to his old anti-Trump tricks.

After years of foot-dragging and empty threats, Senate Republicans finally seemed poised to hold ObamaGate conspirators publicly accountable for their complicity in the biggest political scandal in U.S. history. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) last month issued a list of more than 50 Obama-era officials he threatened to subpoena and compel to testify before the committee he has controlled for nearly 18 months.

The list includes key figures such as former FBI Director James Comey; former acting Attorney General Sally Yates; former CIA Director John Brennan; and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Graham’s committee, according to a May 14 statement, “would debate and vote on a subpoena authorization related to the FISA abuse investigation and oversight of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

Open hearings, long pushed by rank-and-file Republicans frustrated with the lack of culpability and slow pace of ongoing Justice Department criminal investigations, would force ObamaGate accomplices to explain their malfeasance to the American people. Testimony on Wednesday afternoon by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein again underscored how top law enforcement officials have escaped any measure of accountability. Rosenstein played dumb, claimed he was misled by his FBI underlings and that’s why he signed an illegal FISA warrant on Carter Page, appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and expanded Mueller’s reach a few months later even though he had no solid proof of any crime.

But thanks to opposition from his own party, Graham had to postpone a vote to issue the subpoenas until next week. Senate Democrats successfully hijacked the discussion to instead vent about police brutality and racism. “Instead of engaging in political partisan gains on behalf of this president what the American people want this committee to do is to be relevant to why they are shouting and marching and crying in the streets of our country,” California Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) scolded Thursday morning. “I would dare say the conversation we are having today is irrelevant to what…is happening on the streets of America today.”

Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) shared Harris’ disinterest in Graham’s attempt to call ObamaGate accomplices to account. Sasse, who has been silent on this unprecedented abuse of federal power against a political foe despite his spot on the Judiciary committee, ranted that “some of us have other work to do” and asked how much longer the meeting would last. “It’s bullshit the way people grandstand for cameras in here,” Sasse scolded. “The Senate doesn’t work…ninety percent of our committees are about people trolling for soundbites.” (Sasse gave a similar dramatic, weepy monologue to an empty Senate chamber during the Kavanaugh-Ford debacle in 2018.)

Sasse’s brief tirade was his only contribution to the meeting; he didn’t even bother attending Rosenstein’s 3-hour testimony on Wednesday. The Nebraska Republican spent more time authoring a statement to condemn the president’s “photo op” at St. John’s this week than he did exposing corrupt Obama-era Democrats.

After winning his Republican primary last month, Sasse is back to his old anti-Trump tricks.


The Curious Flynn-Kislyak Call Gets Curiouser

It is likely that Kislyak, like so many other Obama-friendly foreigners, was in cahoots with the Democrats to entrap Team Trump before and after the election.

The infamous phone call between then-incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, like so many tales of Russian collusion, is not as it first appeared.

In light of new evidence, it’s likely there’s no truth to the running narrative about the December 29, 2016 phone call that has been the basis of Flynn’s legal nightmare for more than three years. The case against the three-star general, concocted by Barack Obama’s corrupt FBI, centers on the accusation that Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions with Kislyak and later lied about it to the FBI.

And now that we know Flynn’s name in the call was never masked—as the Washington Post reported last week, it was surveillance conducted by the FBI, not by national security officials—Kislyak’s involvement deserves more scrutiny. 

Let us first dispel with the notion that Barack Obama imposed “sanctions” to retaliate for the Kremlin’s alleged election interference. The word “sanctions,” in fact, never appears in Obama’s executive order, which was issued the same day as the Flynn-Kislyak call and more than seven weeks after Election Day; the (barely) three-page document is filled with irrelevant gobbledygook. It was a slap-on-the-wrist, or as one senior Obama aide called the measures, a “symbolic” gesture.

I repeatedly have suggested that Kislyak was a willing partner with the Obama White House in executing the Russian collusion hoax. Kislyak served as the Russian ambassador to the United States for the entirety of Obama’s presidency; he visited the Obama White House at least 22 times.

Press reports describe Kislyak as a longtime Beltway insider, connected to the most powerful people in Washington. “I personally have been working in the United States so long that I know almost everybody,” Kislyak boasted in 2017. 

He was especially tight with his onetime American counterpart, Michael McFaul, an Obama bestie who was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to Russia in 2011 by his then-boss, Hillary Clinton; McFaul is the architect of Obama’s “reset” policy with the Kremlin.

There are several reasons to suspect Kislyak not only was in on the collusion scheme from the start but also that his call to Flynn was part of the Obama White House’s set-up of Trump’s short-lived national security advisor:

Kislyak contacted Flynn before the “sanctions” were announced: Obama issued his lame executive order on December 29, 2016—but Kislyak texted Flynn the day before asking him to call. The Mueller report confirmed that Flynn did not reply to Kislyak’s text; the Russian embassy also attempted to reach Flynn, who was out of town, on December 29.

The White House announced the measures on the afternoon of December 29 and after Flynn conferred with transition team officials, he connected with Kislyak later that day. “Flynn discussed multiple topics with Kislyak, including the sanctions, scheduling a video teleconference between President-elect Trump and Putin, an upcoming terrorism conference, and Russia’s views about the Middle East,” the Mueller report detailed. 

“With respect to the sanctions, Flynn requested that Russia not escalate the situation, not get into a ‘tit for tat,’ and only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner.” Kislyak called Flynn again on December 31, 2016 to confirm that “Russia had chosen not to retaliate to the sanctions in response to the request.”

Smell a rat? I do. It fits too perfectly with the pretext for the bogus Logan Act charge quickly concocted by Comey and others. The call, and the Logan Act case, was discussed during a pivotal January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting with Obama and his key advisors. The dominoes began to fall.

It’s unlikely the government surveilled Kislyak: The gregarious and English-proficient Russian was quite the man about town. He met with top Obama advisors, including Susan Rice, at the White House twice in October 2016, oddly, at the same time Obama was accusing the Kremlin of attempting to meddle in the election. 

Kislyak was the keynote speaker at the Detroit Economic Club on October 26, 2016. And two days after the election, Kislyak spoke at Stanford University with Mike McFaul. The two gushed over each other; it was hardly an appropriate display considering Kislyak represented a country that had just “attacked” our democracy.

Most people believe the Flynn-Kislyak call was intercepted by routine wiretapping of a Russian official living in the United States. This assumption, however, has never been proven. Considering Kislyak’s public profile, his accessibility to the Obama White House, and his coziness with Obama loyalists outside the White House, it would appear to be an unnecessary step.

Kislyak repeatedly reached out to Team Trump after the election: According to testimony by Susan Rice, the Trump transition team expressed concern about Kislyak’s frequent outreach. Rice told the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 that a member of Flynn’s staff asked for “background” information on Kislyak because they knew so little about him. 

While Rice attempted to portray the contacts as bad behavior on Flynn’s part, it jives with other evidence of Kislyak’s ongoing solicitations to Team Trump. (Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor, also testified that a Trump transition official asked if they “should be worried about Kislyak.”) 

Kislyak requested a meeting with Jared Kushner after the election; the diplomat met with the president’s son-in-law and Flynn on November 30, 2016. According to the Mueller report, Kislyak pushed for more meetings: “Kushner declined several proposed meeting dates, but Kushner’s assistant indicated that Kislyak was very insistent about securing a second meeting,” the report stated. “Kushner told the [Special Counsel’s] Office that he did not want to take another meeting because he had already decided Kislyak was not the right channel for him to communicate with Russia.” Kislyak was quite the pest.

Foreign diplomats played a key role in the Russian collusion storyline. Alexander Downer, the Australian ambassador to the U.K., notified the FBI that George Papadopoulos allegedly told him the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton; that’s why, according to James Comey, his FBI opened a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. 

Papadopoulos later accused Downer of setting him up. “Some organization or entity sent him to meet me,” Papadopoulos said in 2018.

Before the presidential election, the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States publicly accused Trump of coddling Russia. “Trump’s comments are only speculative…they call for appeasement of an aggressor and support the violation of a sovereign country’s territorial integrity and another’s breach of international law,” Valeriy Chaley wrote in August 2016. 

And Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) noted in a May 14 interview that “Obama ambassadors across the globe [were] unmasking” Flynn’s name in intelligence reports then “leaking out about anyone within the Trump campaign and the Trump transition that they could.”

Considering how Kislyak appears in nearly every collusion plotline, it’s hard to imagine the Obama folks weren’t pulling his strings, too.

As the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross reminded us last week, the purported reason why the FBI scoured for Flynn’s call transcript is that they were perplexed why the Russians didn’t push back on Obama’s puny “sanctions.” That sounds like a cover-up story.

Here’s what is more likely to be true: Kislyak, like so many other Obama-friendly foreigners, was in cahoots with the Democrats to entrap Team Trump before and after the election. They prompted Kislyak to connect with Flynn to discuss the sanctions—a call that was either monitored as part of the FBI’s investigation into Flynn or a call that Kislyak briefed someone about since it’s unclear whether a  call transcript exists—in order to create an internal and public case to oust Flynn. (The Washington Post revealed the call in a January 12, 2017 bombshell article by David Ignatius.)

People now are pushing for the release of the Flynn-Kislyak call transcript. Undoubtedly, it will expose new holes in the collusion falsity and perhaps reveal who raised the issue of sanctions in the first place. If it was Kislyak, it will add more substance to the idea he was just another collusion hoaxster doing Barack Obama’s dirty work.


The Black Swan of 2020

When a majority of Americans finally realizes what was really happening in 2016 and 2017, do you really think they’ll give Joe Biden power again?

Most of us are familiar in some way with the term “black swan,” an unexpected event with major implications, and one which, in hindsight, often makes total sense. We should probably be talking more about the potential black swan of the 2020 elections, and I don’t mean the coronavirus.

I mean the reaction of the American people watching this summer as more evidence becomes public of senior Obama Administration officials conspiring and using the powerful tools of federal law enforcement and the surveillance state to spy on their successor, President Trump and members of his campaign and administration. 

It is entirely possible that some of these former Obama administration officials and FBI agents will be charged with crimes. And it is likely that through these disclosures of political dirty tricks—exceeding even Nixon’s Watergate—the electorate will realize that the Democratic nominee for president is eyeball-deep in this gross abuse of power. 

Over the last few weeks more and more evidence has been released—mostly by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—revealing Joe Biden’s involvement in these activities. Biden was involved in the West Wing meetings concerning President Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, the FBI plot to get him at any cost, despite the absence of any evidence of criminal activity, and the illegal leaking of classified information about Flynn to continue a falsely predicated investigation—all of which, when confronted by the facts, Biden lied about. More information is very likely coming regarding Biden, and others, and their roles in #Obamagate.

In the next few weeks, it would not surprise me to see news reports of people being brought in front of the grand jury that U.S. Attorney John Durham has convened. Nor will I be surprised when legal counsel for those witnesses leak to the press that their clients are cooperating with Durham. The question is who is already cooperating? Take for instance FBI Agent Joseph Pientka, who apparently has falsified FBI 302s—the Bureau’s standard post-interview reports—and withheld exculpatory evidence. It’s not really a question of if he is going to jail. That’s pretty much a given. The question is: for how long? It really depends on what evidence he offers Durham regarding who was actually involved and directed him to violate the law. 

I’ve never been a big fan of speculating absent the facts, but what gives me some confidence that I’m barking up the right tree is knowing that John Durham has documents to challenge witness assertions and “refresh memories.” We can bet he has cooperating witnesses (I told One America News that FBI general counsel James Baker likely is a cooperating witness last fall). You know that the Pientkas and Bakers of the world aren’t going to take the fall all by themselves; heck, for that matter, throw in Lisa Page, who I suspect is being far more cooperative than people suggest.

That’s all to say I’m pretty sure someone higher up the food chain at the FBI is going to be in Durham’s crosshairs; it’s only a question of who and how many of them. If the evidence supports bringing charges, Durham will hammer them. Durham, unlike the majority of his federal prosecutor colleagues, has a history of holding accountable federal law enforcement agents and lawyers who break the law. He has a record of protecting the civil rights of witnesses and defendants to ensure that his prosecutions never suffer the ignominy that was just handed out to the agents and prosecutors who went after Michael Flynn. 

Remember, Durham can bring charges himself. People should operate on the assumption that Bill Barr and John Durham have to get this done by November 2020 to be safe. If things are going to be set right at the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Intelligence Community, they have an absolute but narrow window of time in which to achieve this just in case Trump is not reelected. 

That’s why I’m convinced we’ll be seeing more and more breaking news regarding Obamagate and abuse of power. If I’m right, we may even see a late June/early July press conference with Barr and Durham in which they announce the first charges against those former Obama-era officials who were involved in the coup against Donald Trump. 

On the political front, despite the mainstream media’s attempts to tamp down all of this, it’s not working. Nonpolitical people are already talking about the Flynn case in Florida and California, so it has even broken through COVID-19 coverage into the greater national discussion. Imagine this summer when even more Americans understand what the Obama Administration attempted. And then they’re going to judge Obama’s No. 2, his self-styled wingman, Joe Biden, and wonder what else the senile old man in the Delaware basement knew. 

I always tell people that a deep sense of fairness permeates Americans and is one of the hallmarks of our culture of liberty. Another hallmark of the American people is their common sense. A friend of mine always cautions those in the media and the political class never to underestimate the collective wisdom of the American people. When a majority of Americans finally realizes what was going down in 2016 and 2017, how illegal it was, and what a gross abuse of power it was, their sense of fairness, common sense and wisdom will come into play. 

After all that, do you really think they’re going to give Joe Biden power again? I don’t think so.


Useless Senate Republicans No Match for the ‘Bums of Steele’

This whole fiasco lies at the feet of Senate Republicans. “Useless” might be too kind a description of them.

The letter, signed by one of the most powerful lawmakers on Capitol Hill and addressed to Fusion GPS, indicated the jig was up.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Glenn Simpson, Fusion’s co-owner, 13 questions about his involvement with the so-called Steele dossier and ties to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “When political opposition research becomes the basis for law enforcement or intelligence efforts, it raises substantial questions about the independence of law enforcement and intelligence from politics,” Grassley wrote.

The letter showed that Senate Republicans were aware Christopher Steele was a paid operative working on behalf of Trump’s Democratic enemies inside and outside the government. Further, the dossier wasn’t raw intelligence exposing collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin; Grassley acknowledged the document was anti-Trump propaganda that influenced activity at Barack Obama’s FBI and seeded damaging news articles before the 2016 election.

In other words, Republicans knew at that point the whole dossier-fueled collusion storyline was a massive scam.

The date of the letter? March 24, 2017. A few days earlier, FBI Director James Comey confirmed during a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the FBI had opened a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, a stunning confession.

Think about it. As the Trump-Russia collusion scam took hold—while Americans were being warned that their new president would act as the stooge of Vladimir Putin—Republicans already knew it was Democratic stagecraft. Further, they knew Comey’s FBI had worked with Steele and relied on his unverified dirt to investigate Donald Trump.

But rather than call the Democrats’ bluff, Senate Republicans, who wield the gavels of every powerful committee, caved. A quiver of sharply worded letters, as I wrote last year, has been their only weaponry, At the same time, Senate Republicans backed a destructive special counsel probe into a crime they knew did not exist. (On the House side, only a handful of Republicans, most notably Devin Nunes of California, did the heavy lifting while paying a major personal price.)

Glenn Simpson testified before Grassley’s committee in August 2017—behind closed doors. The American people never got a glimpse of Simpson’s slipperiness or heard first-hand, at a critical time, that the dossier was opposition research funded by Clinton and the Democratic Party. We never heard Simpson explain how he and Steele—a foreigner—worked over the State Department, the Justice Department, top lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, and the national news media in an attempt to influence the presidential election by portraying Trump as a Russian asset.

Imagine how an open hearing at the time would have shaped the public’s view of the collusion falsehood. President Trump, instead of being hunted by Mueller’s wolves, would have had a chance to counterpunch with Senate Republicans at his side. And more importantly, Americans could have learned the truth before it was too late. (The committee released a transcript of Simpson’s testimony in January 2018 but by then Mueller’s investigation was well underway.)

What we witnessed over the past three years is the greatest abdication of power in recent history. Senate Republicans, perhaps intentionally, gave cover to bad actors including James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe and Robert Mueller. (The now-deceased Arizona Republican, Senator John McCain, played a key role in fueling the collusion narrative, as I detailed last year, as a way to exact revenge against Trump.)

Senate Republicans aided and abetted the unjustified sabotage of Trump’s first term. Trump’s family was targeted; his cabinet members hamstrung; and his aides, present and former, ruthlessly pursued by prosecutors and the news media.

Unlike House Democrats, who have subpoenaed everyone in Trump World except the White House chef, Senate Republicans have issued only one subpoena related to the collusion hoax: The Senate intelligence committee subpoenaed Donald Trump, Jr. last year.

In a spot-on tirade, Tucker Carlson called out Senate and House Republicans for their failures on what the president has fairly labeled #Obamagate. “The vast majority of the Russian collusion investigation…occurred during the first two years of this administration,” Carlson noted on his May 9 show. “Who ran the government then? At the time, Republicans held both houses of Congress and every single committee by definition. They had the power to expose this hoax and to shut it down, but they did not.”

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and others, Carlson fumed, are “useless Senate Republicans” who failed to “stop the derailment of America while it was in progress.”

McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has been completely missing-in-action on the scandal, barely making mention of it. He allowed the Senate Intelligence Committee to remain under Burr’s control; the retiring Republican senator from North Carolina worked in lockstep with Virginia Democrat Mark Warner to use the committee as an extension of the Mueller investigation.

Burr, amid his own scandal, has been replaced with Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) who also has been silent about Obamagate except to deny the fact the FBI spied on the Trump campaign and defend its illegally obtained surveillance of Carter Page. “I don’t think they did anything wrong,” Rubio said in 2018 of Jim Comey’s FBI after the release of the redacted FISA application on Page. “There was [sic] a lot of reasons unrelated to the dossier why they wanted to look at Carter Page.”

Rubio also insisted the intelligence assessment by former CIA Director John Brennan on Russian election hacking was “100 percent accurate.” It’s hard to imagine Rubio will conduct the committee any better than the useless Burr.

But of course no one has done a better paper tiger act than Lindsey Graham. For years, the South Carolina Republican has promised to “get to the bottom” of this treachery but hasn’t held a single hearing related to Obamagate with the exception of last December’s testimony by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Horowitz’s delayed report on FISA abuse often was cited as the excuse for why Senate Republicans wouldn’t hold public hearings with collusion perpetrators. Before that, Graham was waiting for the Mueller report. Now he claims he’s waiting for the Justice Department investigation led by John Durham to conclude.

But everyone—including the president—is out of patience with Graham.

After much prodding, Graham finally released a long list of characters he will ask Judiciary Committee members to subpoena in June. “I’m going to try to explain to the country, have a public accounting of Crossfire Hurricane . . . one of the most unethical, sloppy, ill-conceived, and dangerous operations in the history of the FBI and the Department of Justice,” Graham said on Fox News this week. The senator said the hearings would be held “probably in the summer” because he needs to “do his homework first.”

What homework could Graham possibly need to finish? Or is he just waiting until he can use the dog-ate-my-homework excuse after Democrats win control of the Senate in November?

Even if all 57 subpoenas on Graham’s list are executed in June, it will take several weeks to schedule hearings. According to the calendar, the Senate will be in session only 57 days between Graham’s June 4 meeting and Election Day. That virtually guarantees few if any public interrogations of Obamagate conspirators will take place in the Senate this year.

“Time is running out,” the president tweeted on May 16. “Get tough and move quickly, or it will be too late. The Dems are vicious, but got caught. They MUST pay a big price for what they have done to our Country. Don’t let them get away with this!” He tagged Graham in the tweet.

Unfortunately, in many respects, it’s already too late. The bogus collusion narrative undoubtedly influenced the 2018 midterm elections, handing control of the House to the Democrats. Reputations that have been ruined cannot be restored—Trump can’t get back the first two years of his term. Mueller’s team walks away unscathed while his lead prosecutor raises money for Joe Biden.

This whole fiasco lies at the feet of Senate Republicans. “Useless” might be too kind a description of them.


Acting DNI Grenell Says IC is Working to Declassify Flynn-Kislyak Transcripts

Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Richard Grenell revealed Friday that he has begun the declassification process for the transcripts and intelligence reports related to former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Grenell explained on Twitter that the Intelligence Community has not been been able to declassify the material because it wasn’t their product.

“It’s odd that @AdamSchiff doesn’t know this,” he wrote. “But I already started the declassification for the few we received. They should be released in full, though. The public deserves to see it.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) tweeted in response that he didn’t trust Grenell or the new DNI John Ratcliffe, who was confirmed in the Senate on Thursday.  “They’re the ones with shovels burying evidence to protect @realDonaldTrump,” he tweeted.

Grenell tweeted in response: “I’m letting the public see more info. You are the one who worked to hide the information you didn’t like. You listened to multiple people in classified hearings say they had no evidence and yet go on TV and say the opposite. Transparency is now a must!”

Swalwell taunted Grenell some more on Twitter, writing, “If you have nothing to hide, why don’t you release Flynn’s call with Russia? #ShowUsTheTape.”

“Those are coming,” Grenell replied. “It’s very important for the public to see ALL of them. For too long the public has been misled. Just compare your committee’s transcripts to your public statements.”

Grenell was referring to the misleading statements Democrats on the committee had made about the Trump Campaign colluding with the Russians after multiple Obama officials told them in private testimony that they had seen no evidence of collusion.

Democrats in recent days have been following former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice’s lead in calling for the Trump administration to release the Flynn/Kislyak transcripts.

“In the interest of transparency, Ambassador Rice again calls upon the Director of National Intelligence to release the unredacted transcripts of all Kislyak-Flynn calls,” spokeswoman Erin Pelton said in a statement Tuesday on behalf of Rice. “The American people deserve the full transcripts so they can judge for themselves Michael Flynn’s conduct.”

In his interview with CBS reporter Catherine Herridge on May 8, Attorney General William Barr said that there was “nothing wrong with the call.”

Frustrated with the media’s lack of interest in the ObamaGate spy scandal, White House Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany concluded the White House daily briefing Friday with a series of questions for the press.

FBI Director Christopher Wray meanwhile has finally ordered an internal review into the alleged misconduct in the Flynn investigation.

The review will examine whether any employees engaged in misconduct during the course of the investigation and evaluate whether any improvements need to be made.

Former Texas congressman John Ratcliffe will be sworn in as the new DNI on Tuesday and Grenell will return to his post as Ambassador to Germany.




Rice’s Last Minute ‘By the Book’ Email Written Upon Advice of Obama’s White House Counsel

Former national security advisor Susan Rice wrote her last minute and now infamous “by the book” email to herself upon the advice of the White House Counsel, a newly released letter reveals.

Rice’s email purports to describe a Jan. 5  briefing in the Oval Office between Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and fired former FBI Director James Comey.

Rice’s attorney and former Obama White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler wrote the letter to Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. on Feb. 23, 2018.  According to Ruemmler, Rice wrote the letter  “upon the advice of the White House Counsel’s Office” and didn’t get to it until Inauguration Day, 2017 because “that was the first opportunity she had to do so.”

Rice’s short email mentioned a desire to proceed “by the book” three times.

“Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and upon the advice of the White House Counsel’s Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion,”  Ruemmler wrote to the senators. “Ambassador Rice memorialized the discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining days of the administration and transition.”

Erin Pelton, a spokeswoman for Rice, told Fox News on Wednesday that Rice penned the memo at the advice of Neil Eggleston, who was the White House counsel at the time.

According to Rice’s email, Obama asked Yates and Comey to “stay behind” after the Russia briefing with the other Obama officials. The president told the two that he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions.

“From a national security perspective, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” Rice wrote.

Rice’s email, declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, says that Comey then told Obama that he was doing everything “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement,” but he had “concerns” about Flynn because he was “speaking frequently” with Kislyak.

“President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn,” Rice wrote. According to the email, “Comey replied ‘potentially,’” and “added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’”

But Comey had no reason to be concerned about Flynn. Because they could find no damaging evidence against him, the FBI had moved to close their counterintelligence probe into Flynn on January 4, 2017, the very day before the “by the book” meeting at the White House. But on Comey’s orders, the investigation was left open so an FBI counterintelligence team could set a perjury trap for Flynn over the phone call.

Flynn spoke by phone with Kislyak five times on December 29, 2016 after President Obama signed an executive order announcing sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. The reason there were so many calls in one day was because of a bad connection and the need to call back when the call was dropped. Comey, who had the transcripts to the calls, would have known this.

In those December 29 calls (Flynn had had to phone back a few times because reception was choppy), Flynn had urged Kislyak not to escalate tensions with the United States. Obama had just expelled 35 of Russia’s spies and had levied minor sanctions against Putin’s intelligence agencies as a rebuke for election meddling. According to the motion to drop his prosecution, Flynn’s request was “consistent with him advocating for, not against, the interests of the United States.” Moreover, Flynn’s communications with Kislyak “gave no indication that Mr. Flynn was being directed and controlled by the Russian federation.”

Former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland, who early on was also pushed out of the Trump administration and into Mueller’s meat grinder, said nothing about Rice’s email made sense.

McFarland told Fox News’ Shannon Bream that sending an email to yourself like Rice did was an “odd thing to do.”

“Why would you write a memorandum to the record for yourself unless you assumed that somebody was going to come and look for those clues, that somebody was potentially going to come after the fact and see that they’ve done something wrong,” McFarland said. “So she was trying to make sure everything was done ‘by the books.’”

McFarland also pointed out that she and Flynn had received intelligence briefings that left out Russia before the “By the Book” meeting, so Obama’s question— “Is there any reason why we shouldn’t bring the new team in on what we’re doing with Russia?”—doesn’t make sense.

During a briefing three weeks prior,  “every other topic was mentioned” including North Korea, China and ISIS,” she said. “But they didn’t mention anything about Russia and yet they knew, at that point, that they were about to sanction Russia for election interference.”

“So none of it really [jibes] unless you look at it from the perspective of they knew they had done something wrong and now they were trying to cover their tracks,” McFarland said.

“I mean, it’s the most bizarre thing I’ve read,” former congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) remarked on Fox News, Wednesday. “It is, ‘Dear Diary, President Obama is perfect and Jim Comey says he’s done everything by the book.’ Well, I’d like to know what book he’s following.”


Comey Said He Had ‘No Indication’ Flynn Colluded with Russia According to Declassified ‘By the Book’ Email

A newly declassified document confirms that the Obama administration was spying on Lt. General Michael Flynn even though the FBI had “no indication” that President Trump’s short-lived national security advisor had been colluding with Russia.

According to the document, disgraced former FBI director James Comey told then-President Obama that he had “no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak.”

White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent herself a curious email on Jan. 20, 2017, detailing a Russia briefing with Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and fired former FBI Director James Comey.

Portions of Rice’s email have previously been released, but some Flynn-related material remained redacted until Tuesday, May 19.

According to the email, after the briefing, Obama asked Yates and Comey to “stay behind,” and said he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions.

According to recently declassified documents, Yates testified to congress that she was “surprised” to hear Obama asking about Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak in the meeting because she had not been aware of the calls herself.

Recall that Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made an unmasking request on Flynn on that same day. Joe Biden also made an unmasking request on Jan. 12, 2017 —the day before the illegally leaked information about Flynn’s phone calls with Kislyak were published in the Washington Post.

Rice wrote in her email that Obama “specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.” He also allegedly stressed that Comey’s team “should proceed as it normally would by the book.”

“From a national security perspective, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” Rice wrote.

For the past year, the FBI had been spying on Trump’s campaign and later his transition team as part of its Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Rice’s email, declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, says that Comey then told Obama that he was doing everything “by the book” as it relates to law enforcement,” but he had “concerns” about Flynn because he was “speaking frequently” with Kislyak.

Flynn spoke by phone with Kislyak five times in December 2016 after President Obama signed an executive order announcing sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Flynn, an experienced national security professional who knew his calls would be monitored, merely told the Russian ambassador not to escalate tensions, and Russia agreed.

“President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn,” Rice wrote. According to the email, “Comey replied ‘potentially,’” and “added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’”

Because the FBI was listening in on the phone calls, Comey knew full well that Flynn was not sharing “sensitive information” with the Russian ambassador.

Moreover, Comey gleefully admitted during a television interview a year later that his team did not do things “by the book” when he sent a pair of agents to the White House interview the new national security advisor without a lawyer present.





Gowdy: Members of Trump’s Family Were Unmasked on Inauguration Day

Besides General Michael Flynn, many Americans on President Trump’s transition team, as well as members of the president’s family were unmasked during the transition period in late 2016 and early 2017, Republicans say.

The publication of a list of top Obama officials who sought to unmask retired General Michael Flynn sent shock-waves throughout Washington on Wednesday, and Republicans are making it clear that the incriminating list is only the tip of the iceberg.

Unmasking refers to the disclosure of names of Americans whose communications are incidentally picked up in U.S. intelligence surveillance.

While it is not illegal for members of an administration to make unmasking requests, the unprecedented volume of unmasking requests made by Team Obama during the 2016 election year strongly suggest that they were engaging in political espionage.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) released the list of Obama officials who requested to “unmask” the identity of Trump’s incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn during the transition period. In one instance, Flynn’s phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was intercepted by U.S. spies, and his identity in the call was unmasked and illegally leaked to the media.

It is a felony to leak classified information from intercepted material to the media, which is what was done with the Flynn phone call.

Declassified documents show that 16 senior Obama officials made 49 requests to unmask Flynn during the transition, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Obama’s then-chief of staff Denis McDonough.

“It’s even worse than this,” said Rep. Devin Nunes on Fox Business Wednesday evening. “You’re only seeing the folks that unmasked General Flynn. The reality is, there were a whole lot of other Americans on the Trump transition team that were unmasked, and those need to be made public also.”

Former congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) echoed Nunes’ point on Fox News Thursday, and went even further. 

“It’s not just Michael Flynn,” Gowdy told host Sandra Smith. “There was an unmasking request made the morning of the inauguration. The morning of the inauguration. President Trump’s family members were unmasked,” he said.

Gowdy added that the newly declassified documents provide “a very nice witness list to start investigating the leak of classified information.”

“I’d be curious how many people on this unmasking list have been interviewed by the FBI over the leak,” Gowdy added, referring to the felony leak about Flynn’s infamous December 29, 2016 phone call with the Russian Ambassador to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

In March of 2017, Nunes—then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee—announced that he had learned about the “unmasking” of Trump transition officials by the outgoing Obama administration.

As Byron York noted at the Washington Examiner, Nunes’ announcement was immediately dismissed as a “stunt,” a “charade,” and a “fiasco.”

“The unmasking stunt was completely fabricated,” said former Obama Justice Department official Matthew Miller. “Devin Nunes is dangerous,” pronounced the New York Times’ Frank Bruni.

“Nunes’ Fake Scandal” declared the New Yorker. Similar sentiments echoed across the hallowed halls of the Washington Post, the Times, CNN, and MSNBC.

Nunes didn’t get much respect from members of the Republican establishment either.

During an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show on March 28, 2017, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said  Nunes’ had taken his committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election “off track,” and compared him to the hapless Inspector Clouseau from the “Pink Panther” movies.

“If he’s not willing to tell the Democrats and Republicans on the committee who he met with and what he was told, then I think he’s lost his ability to lead,” Graham said. “My belief is the House is off track and probably can’t get back on track.”

Nunes, who also took a massive amount of heat when he released his (now proven correct) FISA abuse memo, has been completely vindicated once again on the unmasking scandal.

“I sounded the alarm on this in March 2017,” he said in a statement Wednesday night. “It’s an outrageous abuse of Americans’ civil liberties for an administration to exploit our intelligence capabilities to spy on its political opponents. And that’s exactly what happened.”



Graham Throws Cold Water on Trump’s Call For Obama to Testify in ObamaGate Hearing

President Donald Trump on Thursday strongly urged Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to call former President Barack Obama to testify before his committee about the unmasking scandal that has become known as “ObamaGate,” but the senator quickly threw cold water on the idea.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell this week declassified a list of Obama officials who asked to “unmask” the identity of the president’s incoming national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, and on Wednesday, Senators Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) released the bombshell information.

The roster implicates top Obama officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Obama’s then-chief of staff Denis McDonough.

As American Greatness’ Julie Kelly reported on Wednesday, McDonough requested his unmasking on the same day Obama held a key meeting at the White House with “all the perpetrators of the Russian collusion hoax.” It was recently revealed that during the meeting, Obama himself brought up Flynn’s infamous December 29, 2016 phone call with the Russian Ambassador. It now appears likely that McDonough was Obama’s source for the Flynn phone call information.

During a two-month period that began on election day, Nov. 8, 2016, senior Obama administration officials made 49 requests to unmask Flynn, and according to former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), those requests were only the tip of the iceberg.  As Nunes first noted in March of 2017, Flynn was only one of many other Trump transition team members who were under surveillance by Team Obama.

For over a year now, Graham, the chairman of the powerful Judiciary Committee, has been promising to hold hearings to examine the spy scandal, as well as other Democrat scandals, but for some reason or other, he has been largely missing-in-action.

The last straw for the president apparently came when Graham vowed to “get to the bottom of” the unmasking scandal on Fox and Friends, Thursday morning.

“If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama,” President Trump wrote on Twitter. “He knew EVERYTHING.”

He added: “Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!”

Graham shot down the president’s tweet, telling Politico, “I don’t think now’s the time for me to do that. I don’t know if that’s even possible.”

Later Thursday, the senator released a statement saying the Judiciary Committee will hold “multiple in-depth hearings” in June “regarding all things related” to the FBI Russia investigation (dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane”).

“No president is above the law,” Graham said in the statement. “However, the presidency has executive privilege claims against other branches of government. … As to the Judiciary Committee, both presidents are welcome to come before the committee and share their concerns about each other. If nothing else it would make for great television. However, I have great doubts about whether it would be wise for the country.”

Obama will get away with community organizing the biggest spy scandal in American history because Republicans like Graham fear that calling a former president to testify before congress would set a bad precedent.

The senator told Politico that he was “greatly concerned by the precedent that would be set by calling a former president for oversight.”

“I understand President Trump’s frustration,” he added. “But be careful what you wish for.”





Biden Denies Knowing Anything About Flynn Investigation Before Admitting He ‘Was Aware’

Presumptive Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden denied knowing anything about the investigation into Michael Flynn until he was reminded that he was in the room at the White House with other top Obama officials on the day the matter was discussed.

Biden’s memory was jogged by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos during an interview on “Good Morning America,” Tuesday.

While noting that the president called the Flynn case “the biggest political crime in U.S. history,” Stephanopoulos asked Biden what he personally knew about the case.

“What did you know about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn and was there anything improper done?” the host asked.

“I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” Biden replied without hesitation. “Number two, this is all about diversion!” he cried.

To Stephanopoulos’ credit, he pressed Biden about his answer.

“You say you didn’t know anything about it but you were in a January 5, 2017 meeting where you and the president were briefed on the FBI’s plan to question Michael Flynn over those conversations which he had with the Russian ambassador Kislyak …”

On January 5, 2017, Biden attended an Oval Office meeting to discuss Russian election interference with then-FBI Director James Comey,  then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, according to recently declassified documents. Then-National security adviser Susan Rice and other members of the national security council were also in on the meeting.

“Joe Biden was in the room when one of the greatest abuses of power by an administration in American history was in progress,” Trump campaign spokesman Matt Wolking said in a statement after the news broke last week. “The corrupt media will do its best to cover up this scandal and protect him, but Americans deserve to know: What did Joe Biden know and when did he know it?”

In Biden’s defense, he may not have heard about the Flynn investigation at that briefing. After the meeting, the officials who would be leaving at the end of the term were dismissed and Yates and Comey, who would continue in the Trump administration, were asked to stay. That’s when Obama brought up Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, apparently taking Yates by surprise.

In answer to Stephanopoulos’s question, Biden said, “no, I thought you asked me about whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted, I’m sorry.”

But Biden had specifically said he didn’t know about the FBI’s “moves to investigate Michael Flynn” in his previous answer.

“I-I-I was aware that they had asked for an investigation,” he continued. “But that’s all I know about it and I don’t think anything else, I mean look.”

When Stephanopoulos asked Biden if he believed the Justice Department was right to drop the charges against Flynn, the candidate cited a letter signed by 2,000 former DOJ officials who called for Attorney General William Barr to resign.

“I have been absolutely stunned by the way in which he has not conducted the office properly,” Biden blustered. “I don’t know the detail of where we are right now.”

He added, “My point is a simple one. Focus on what’s in front of us. You have plenty of time to investigate this issue. I think there’s nothing there, there.”

Following the interview, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that Biden had “lied about the setup of General Flynn.”


#ObamaGate Trends on Twitter as Durham Investigation Goes ‘Full Throttle’

U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham is going “full throttle” in his review into the roots of the Russia investigation and is being assisted by two additional prosecutors, Fox News reported Monday.

According to two sources,  Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, are both helping with Durham’s investigation.

Jensen was tasked by Attorney General William Barr in February to review the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and is continuing to work with Durham now that the DOJ has dropped the case.

“They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn’t want to be distracted,” one of the sources told Fox News. “He’s going full throttle, and they’re looking at everything,” the source added.

The DOJ determined that the bureau’s 2017 Flynn interview — which formed the basis for his guilty plea of lying to investigators — was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”

The retired Army lieutenant general for months has been trying to withdraw his plea, aided by a new attorney aggressively challenging the prosecution’s case and conduct.

Documents unsealed by the Justice Department earlier this month revealed that agents discussed the outdated Logan Act as a pretext to interview Flynn in the Russia probe.  Officials also discussed whether they wanted to “get him to lie” so he’d be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit wrongdoing.

Flynn explained in a statement that he finally pleaded guilty to lying federal agents in December of 2017  because of “the intense pressure from the Special Counsel’s Office, which included a threat to indict my son Michael, and the lack of crucial information from my counsel.”

According to Fox’s source, the “pattern of conduct” Durham is investigating also includes the FBI’s abuse of the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

“Barr talks to Durham every day,” the source said. “The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it’s serious.”

Durham is expected to wrap up his investigation by the end of summer.

President Trump on Friday expressed disgust with the newly released transcripts of interviews from the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation that showed top Obama officials admitting they knew of no “empirical evidence” of Russian collusion even though many of them accused him of having ties to the Kremlin in public interviews.

“It was a very dangerous situation what they did,” Trump said during an interview with “Fox & Friends” Friday. “These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they’re going to pay a big price in the not too distant future.”

The transcripts, which were released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., revealed top Obama officials were questioned over whether they had or had seen evidence of such collusion, coordination or conspiracy — the issue that drove the FBI’s initial case and later the special counsel probe. They generally said they had not.

“I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in 2017. “That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Trump on Sunday blasted former President Barack Obama on twitter for spearheading what he called “the biggest political crime in American history, by far.” On Sunday and most of Monday, #ObamaGate trended on Twitter.

Referring to this tweet during a briefing on Monday, Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker asked Trump, “What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him?”

Trump replied, “ObamaGate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s a disgrace that it happened.” The president added ominously, “and from what I understand that’s only the beginning, some terrible things happened.”

Pressed by Rucker to specify what crime Obama potentially committed, Trump said, “You know what the crime is, the crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.”

“You’ll be seeing what’s going on in the coming weeks,” he said. “I wish you’d write honestly about it.”


Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, meanwhile, has declassified a list of former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his telephone conversations with former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition, according to ABC News.

Grenell, who remains the U.S. ambassador to Germany along with being the acting DNI, visited the Justice Department last week and brought the list with him, according to the official.

In 2017, the conservative media highlighted improper unmaskings of various Trump campaign officials by Obama officials, including Susan Rice and Samantha Power.

While the law requires that identifying information of U.S. persons picked up during foreign surveillance be “masked,” high-ranking intelligence officials can request the identities be revealed if they feel the information is necessary to further understand the intercepts.

Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice has openly acknowledged unmasking the identities of some senior Trump officials during the presidential transition but has strenuously denied ever leaking any identities and said nothing she did was politically motivated.

Declassified text messages between FBI lovebirds Lisa Page and Peter Strzok strongly suggest that Obama was pulling the strings on the anti-Trump operation from the White House.

In an August 5, 2016 email, Strzok told Page “the White House is running this” and in a Sept. 2, 2016, text exchange Page wrote that “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”

In a bizarre phone call with thousands of his supporters last week, Obama falsely claimed that Flynn had been charged with perjury, and added inaccurately that “there is no precedent that anybody can find” for someone accused of perjury “getting off scot-free.”

Obama made the incorrect assertions as it became known that he was acutely interested in Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with Kislyak, surprising then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in a White House meeting.

An exhibit in the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case last week detailed a special counsel interview of former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. The interview indicated outgoing President Barack Obama was aware of Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.

The document noted Yates learned about the calls during a Jan 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting with Obama, Rice, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

After the briefing, Obama asked Yates and Comey to “stay behind,” and said he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russia’s ambassador about sanctions. Obama “specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.”

On Inauguration Day, Rice sent a curious email to herself, and now, in light of recent revelations, Senate Judiciary Committee investigators want to take a closer look at it.

“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” she wrote in the email about the Jan. 5 meeting with top Obama administration officials.

On his his Fox News show Monday night, Tucker Carlson summed up Obama’s words, thus: “The president of the United States turned to the head of the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement official in America, and said, ‘continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so that I can act against him.”

Carlson said Obama deserved to be known as “the disgraced former president who used the power of federal law enforcement to hurt his political enemies,” but added that “unfortunately, this is not a normal period” because the corrupt corporate media is so grotesquely biased, reporting the news honestly and fairly is an unrealistic expectation.

“Obama’s plan to derail his successor unfolded with very little opposition along the way, including from Republicans,” Carson noted. “The entire country, therefore, spent the first three years of the Trump administration hyperventilating about Russian collusion.”



Mexican President Demands Apology for Fast And Furious, Says Obama Officials Should be Investigated

Suddenly, as “#ObamaGate” trends on Twitter, and former president Barack Obama’s fake veneer of “scandal-free” integrity collapses, the president of Mexico is demanding an apology and an explanation for the deadly Obama-era gunwalking scheme known as Operation Fast and Furious.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador reportedly brought up the gun-running scandal last week while discussing the drug trafficking arrest of Genaro Garcia Luna, Mexico’s security minister between 2006 and 2012. Luna was arrested in the United States in December and charged with drug-trafficking offenses.

The Mexican president said Obama administration officials with the CIA, the FBI and the DEA should be investigated for potential cooperation with the corrupt former security minister.

“What seems serious to me is that a violation of our sovereignty was carried out, a secret operation, and that Mexicans were killed with these weapons,” Lopez Obrador said during a press conference in Mexico City on Friday. “There is still time for the U.S. to apologize.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he would send a letter to the U.S. asking for detailed information on the gun-running scandal.

Starting in the fall of 2009 and through December 2010, the Obama administration allowed criminal suspects to “walk” off with guns purchased from gun shops near the Southern border, without law enforcement interdicting or tracking them.

Republicans suspected that Obama’s ATF was attempting to “bump up its case numbers” by allowing mass quantities of high powered weapons to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

About two thousand guns ended up being trafficked to Mexico and used in drug cartel violence, resulting in hundreds of Mexican deaths. After Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with a Fast and Furious gun in December of 2010, several whistleblowers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) came forward to express their concerns about the operation.

The whistleblowers first contacted Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who began investigating the controversy in Jan. 2011. Then, on Feb. 22, 2011, investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson filed her first report on the burgeoning scandal at CBS News. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was eventually held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents from Republican congressional investigators.

Documents and testimony revealed that a National Security staffer at the Obama White House named Kevin O’Reilly was in constant communication with Bill Newell, the ATF Special Agent in charge of Fast and Furious, about the case while it was under way.

O’Reilly indicated in one email that he wanted to share information about the case with other National Security staffers, but stated that it would go no further than that. White House officials have said there is no evidence that Newell and O’Reilly ever discussed the controversial tactic of gunwalking and, on those grounds, have blocked the attempts of Congressional Republicans to interview O’Reilly, who has since been sent on assignment to Iraq for the State Department.

The left-wing president urged his predecessor, Felipe Calderón, to explain Mexico’s involvement in “Fast and Furious” but Calderón replied on Twitter that his government had nothing to do with it.

López Obrador argued that even if Mexico had been informed, the operation was an illegal intrusion violating the nation’s sovereignty.

“How could this be? A government that invades in this way, that flagrantly violates sovereignty, international laws,” Lopez Obrador said on Friday. “We have to shine light on this so that an action of this type will never be carried out again.”