Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
For many months I have been trying to be patient, objective and optimistic about the future of our country. I’ve tried to collect as much information as I can to balance the outrageous actions of the FBI and DOJ over the last three years with the efforts that are in progress to get to the truth. The latest report of the FISC appointing David Kris to review the FBI’s changes to their surveillance process reflects the near impossibility of the truth making any difference.
We have seen every level of government, House representatives and department heads complicit in one of the most devastating abuses of power ever seen in government. We also know that John Durham may be our last hope to identify the illegal and unethical activities that have dominated the attacks against the office of the President. But will the truth make any difference?
I ask this question after reading Unsk’s informative post about the David Kris appointment. After a detailed report from IG Horowitz exposing the violations, abuses, and possibly illegal actions related to FISC applications, the FISC selected a man who was at the very least connected to these processes. Mollie Hemingway explains the Court’s pathetic reasoning:
The court ‘finds it appropriate to appoint David S. Kris, Esq., to serve as amicus curiae to assist the Court in assessing the government’s response to’ a Dec. 17, 2019, order to ‘inform the Court . . . of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.’’
The pick was justified on the grounds that he is one of the few officials with FISA experience. But Kris has repeatedly shown himself to be a reflexive defender of the FBI, even as evidence mounted of its malfeasance. . .
Kris was one of the many Washington insiders who either fell for or pretended to fall for the validity of the Russia collusion hoax.
There is an overwhelming number of examples of Kris’ partisan views. Yet the FISC believes that Kris is the best person to evaluate objectively the FBI’s response.
The FISC decision epitomizes for me the waste of government efforts to find its way through these disastrous and disgraceful activities and resolve them:
- How could the FISC have been so careless in signing off on the FISA applications in the first place?
- How could they not recognize years ago the abuse that was taking place right under their noses?
- How could they expect the FBI to generate new criteria for submissions after the widespread abuses of their system?
- How could the FISC choose a person, who has made it clear that he despises the President, as the official who should review the FBI submissions?
John Durham may find evidence to incriminate people from all over the federal government. Then what? Will people, at the very least, be fired? Will their reputations be ruined, will they be sent to jail, or will we simply shake our heads in disbelief and move on?
Will the truth make any difference?