Released earlier this week, the Durham Report chronicles “matters related to intelligence activities and investigations arising out of the 2016 presidential campaigns.” These “matters,” dating back to 2015 and known for years as the Trump Russian Collusion Hoax, speak to the window dressing nature of this 300-plus page data release.

That said, three undeniable realities emerge.

First, the Durham Report reminds (and should warn the unaware) that we live in a two-tiered justice system. The report documents FBI personnel illegally opening a surveillance operation on presidential candidate Donald Trump. It further details operations which wreak of interference in seeking to prevent Trump’s election and illicit acts later designed to undermine his administration and potential re-election to office. Bad acts exposed yet with minimal consequences.

Firing or forced retirement leading to a lucrative media contributor or other consulting gig is no substitute for significant legal repercussions. Al Perrotta at The Stream provides a great overview with Reacting to Durham Report Reaction.

The report also serves to further green light Administrative State collaborators to continue illicit business as usual. Criminal statutes of limitations have conveniently elapsed. Not as though meaningful prosecutions would ever be likely from a Department of Justice which appears more a partner (in crime) than overseer of the FBI that falls under its jurisdiction. The public ignores this point at great risk as it’s one not lost on the Administrative State.

Again, the Durham Report details illegal operations brazenly performed by government employees and for which there will be no consequences. Why change your crooked playbook now?

A final reality comes with Durham’s release alerting corporate media that acting as a propaganda arm charged with “reporting” government spin is far more rewarding than exposing truths. Never mind the historic mission of journalism. As language itself is weaponized, media no longer provides the public with objective, relevant information from which educated opinions and prudent actions can flow. Today’s media twists messages to present a state- or corporate-sanctioned message that is often at odds with the best interests of its audience, the American people.

The Durham Report exposes the media as enthusiastic participants in the assault on the Trump campaign/administration and ultimately, on the public at large. With no pretense of “oops, we got it wrong,” the media’s unapologetic response to the Durham Report reminds that its alliance with government is far stronger than any bond with readers, listeners or viewers.

Once upon a time phrases such as “honesty is the best policy” and “crime doesn’t pay” were commonly ascribed to having meaning, credibility. John Durham and his report are post-free America’s latest indicators that both phrases now only remind of a time long gone.

Lou Ann Anderson worked in central Texas talk radio as both a host and producer and currently hosts Political Pursuits: The Podcast. Her tenure as Watchdog Wire–Texas editor involved covering state news and coordinating the site’s citizen journalist network. As a past Policy Analyst with Americans for Prosperity–Texas, Lou Ann wrote and spoke on a variety of issues including the growing issue of probate abuse in which wills, trusts, guardianships and powers of attorney are used to loot assets from intended heirs or beneficiaries.

The post Durham Report Highlights Three Realities Americans Should Face appeared first on WB Daily.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg dashed the hopes of anyone seeking a modicum of justice in the Spygate scandal. Boasberg let FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith walk away without any prison time. Clinesmith was the only person indicted in the case involving FBI spying on the Trump campaign and then administration. At issue was Clinesmith’s altering of an email that helped the FBI secure a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. Clinesmith received an email from the CIA that stated Carter Page was an “operational contact” for the CIA. Before submitting that email to his bosses, Clinesmith altered it. He changed the email to say that Page was NOT an “operational contact”. As a result, making the case that the FBI needed to surveil Page became easier.

In short, Clinesmith helped to deceive and defraud the FISA court; he mocked it. Did he do this on his own? Was he instructed to? Who else was involved? Why did Boasberg not seem interested in finding out?

Boasberg the Presiding FISA Court Judge

Judge Boasberg is not just a U.S. District Court Judge. He is also the presiding judge of the very FISA court that Clinesmith allegedly deceived, defrauded and mocked. Boasberg was also on the court at the time the FISA court approved the four applications to spy on Page.

If anything, Boasberg should have recused himself for being too close. After all, he presided over the sentencing of the very same man who deceived Boasberg’s court. Instead, Boasberg rendered a decision against Clinesmith (probation) reflective of someone who was not angered by Clinesmith’s actions at all. In fact, the sentence Boasberg handed down to Clinesmith points more to the Judge being in league with what the FBI did, than deceived by it.

At a minimum, it’s clear that Boasberg does not want to get to the truth. Sentencing Clinesmith to a lengthy prison sentence very well could have done that.

If, as suspected, Clinesmith was carrying out a larger mission for FBI brass, sending him to prison likely would have gotten him singing. Boasberg had to have known this. Doesn’t he want to know who at the FBI set out to defraud his court?

One thing is certain. The Deep State always learns from its mistakes. Take the example of Watergate’s James McCord. The establishment set him up to take the fall and he went to prison. While there, McCord concluded that he wasn’t going to do that and sent a letter to the judge who presided over the Watergate trials. In that letter, McCord did sing:

On 19th March, 1973, McCord wrote a letter to Judge John J. Sirica claiming that the defendants had pleaded guilty under pressure (from John Dean and John N. Mitchell) and that perjury had been committed.

As a result, the Watergate scandal exploded. Conversely, Boasberg’s actions are more indicative of a judge who doesn’t want Clinesmith to replicate McCord’s letter.

The Nunes Memo

On Groundhog Day, 2018, the Office of the White House declassified the Nunes memo. The four page memo was political dynamite. It blew holes in the debunked Steele Dossier, which was used as the foundation for seeking the FISA warrants. The memo named all of the individuals who signed the FISA applications. Most important, they were all much higher up the ladder than Clinesmith. It also revealed that the law firm for the DNC – Perkins Coie – funded the basis for the applications.

Did Boasberg read the Nunes Memo when it was declassified three years ago? The FISA court said nothing publicly; it should have been outraged. Instead, its presiding judge – Boasberg – doesn’t seem the least bit angry.

He seems content to allow the FBI and others make a mockery of his court without consequence.

As a result, Boasberg has made a mockery of his court as well.

The post FISA Court Corruption appeared first on WB Daily.