Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing reveal Brennan was the mastermind of the Russia hoax

Anyone closely following the Russia hoax and its collapse understands that DC superlawyers Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing have by far the best track record in accurately calling out the nature of the scandal and identifying the coming revelations.

Yesterday, they spent an hour with Sebastian Gorka on his Salem Radio syndicated talk show and gave us a preview of sorts about where the scandal is headed next.

They also revealed the Admiral Mike Rogers is happily willing to testify about the abuses that he uncovered, which actually triggered the initiation of the Russiagate plot. Recall that when he was head of the National Security Agency (NSA) which comprehensively monitors telecommunications, he discovered that political appointees in the White House were using its database on a huge scale to monitor political opponents, and acted to cut off that access. Suddenly cut off from their ability to spy on political opponents, and almost certainly fearful of public exposure should Hillary Clinton be defeated, the wheels were put in motion (with Brennan in the lead) to generate the Steele dossier and the FISA warrants to both spy on and tar the threat of a Trump presidency.

There is lot of other discussion that follows that is very intriguing, including consideration of the lack of whistleblowers in the FBI and DOJ among the numbers of people not in the top layer of political appointee management circles. That none of the career officials tasked with implementing the hoax spoke up at the time bespeaks a rot in the organizational culture that will not be corrected by mere changes in top level personnel.

Some members of the cabal WILL be punished, if only for FISA abuse. They will attempt to cast it all under the rubric of “mistakes were made” but since only Republicans were targeted that excuse is not going to fly. The FISA court is serious business. And so was the illegal unmaskings.

There will be punishment meted out but it will probably be punishment “light”. Nobody in DC is ever really prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The Swamp protects its own. That said, the perps will suffer perhaps the greatest indignity of all: toxic ignominy. They will all disappear into into the night. Gone from politics forever.

There is a lot to unpack as this unfolds and more information is known.

There are also a few things I am interested in that have received very little or no mention -

Why were contractors allowed unfettered access to the private communications of private citizens? This is astounding to me.

What other candidates and other elected representatives were spied on in this fashion by the previous administration? This is critical in my opinion. I don’t think this started with Trump and it may in fact have been conducted in the previous election as well.

A warrant that is required to listen in on a citizens communications is the most difficult warrant to obtain and it requires ironclad probable cause and justification. However, it sounds like this was circumvented by allowing “contractors” to access the raw data from the NSA. This is a massive violation of civil rights under our laws.

Why did the Obama administration change the rules for sharing of raw data as they were approaching the end of their administration and was it retroactive to cover what already occurred? What was the justification for this policy and was the FISC and congress informed of the scope, scale, and justification for this massive change or does the NSA have blanket permission to conduct such activities?

Did we work out a deal with our 5-eye partners that we spy for them and they spy for us?

There needs to be a criminal inquiry into the unmasking ordered by Obama officials starting with Rice. Same questions as above and again, I think this is a violation of civil rights. What was the justification for unmasking and who received the communications?

Trump needs to frame these questions in public. He needs to ask the question “Do we want to live in a police state?” and ask “Why are the courts allowing this?” Why did the safeguards against this fail?

I personally would like for him to appoint a special bi-partisan (I know - that is a joke) commission and I would like for it to include two people for certain - Sen. Rand Paul and at least one of the following Reps - Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, or John Ratcliffe. They weaponized our raw intelligence data collection and targeted people for political reasons - not national security.

Trump needs to call a cabinet meeting and tell his appointees that it is time to rip the band-aid off and they should make every effort to fully disclose and be transparent about what their agencies did. Have an amnesty for non-supervisory employees to report any suspicious/targeted conduct to their own OIG by executive order. Failure to do so in the amnesty period will expose any employee “just following orders” to disciplinary action, criminal referral, and/or prosecution.

This needs to happen to restore trust in our own government. There are laws, policies, and procedures in place throughout the government to prevent such actions - Why were they not followed by our bureaucrats who are supposed to know the rules?

***********

Very good post on your part. Great questions all.

I am in complete agreement that Trump needs to give a formal statement about this abuse — in an address from the Oval Office. These are very serious questions that effect the viability of our republic. Its not an exaggeration to say that its an existential issue of the highest priority. A presidential address would highlight the urgency of getting to the bottom of the abuses and restoring integrity and trust back into our government.

Not many matters could be more grave or consequential than this national scandal.

> That none of the career officials tasked with implementing the hoax spoke up at the time bespeaks a rot in the organizational culture that will not be corrected by mere changes in top level personnel.

Maybe I’m too forgiving, or too naiive, but I can easily imagine that a relatively few people were able to manipulate others. For example, if I were a peon shown a court-ordered FISA warrant, it would not occur to me to ask “Say, this warrant wasn’t obtained via perjury, was it?”. Likewise, given the order “Hey, can you talk to so-and-so to see whether the Russians are helping him” I would be completely unaware that my boss had already seeded “Tell so-and-so the Russians will help him” through someone else.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.