Pete Buttigieg re-ignites an abortion discussion

Thursday, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said that determining when human life begins is "unknowable" therefore, abortion cannot be regulated well. The word for word quote is:

“For those who have a strong view about some of these almost unknowable questions around life, the best answer I can give, is that because we will never be able to settle those questions, in a consensus fashion,”

Interesting. While Buttigieg is dodging the issue, for political expediency, many people on both the right and left have very strong feelings both ways.

Some people on the hard right feel that as soon as a sperm and an egg get together, that is a person. I personally, as a medical professional and scientist, disagree. It is a plan for a person. I don't think a fertilized egg is a person any more than a blueprint is a building. Granted, it is a unique blueprint, but it is still a blueprint. The fertilized egg's only function is to eventually become a human being.

Some on the hard left say that a fully formed, completely healthy baby, minutes from being born, is not a human being, and can be killed just because the pregnancy is unwanted. It is hard to debate those people because they have apparently no knowledge of human physiology and are basically insane.

This brings us to the crux of the issue. If you do disagree with the idea that a fertilized egg is a person, and you agree that a healthy fetus minutes from birth is a person, then you have to come up with some determination of when "becoming a human being" occurs. That is the tough part.

Here is one attempt at a reasonable approach.

After years and years of struggling with this, as a physician, I have come to my own conclusion. You don't have to agree or disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own view. I just want my to have some rational basis for my own opinion.

Some analogous situations, to illustrate the points:

1. At one end of the spectrum: At Ford or General Motors, when they begin to build a vehicle, they start with a frame. They then add other parts until it becomes a vehicle. Is a frame (by itself) a car or truck? Is the assembly program in the factory computer a vehicle? Obviously not. To say yes would be the same as saying that a windshield wiper, or a tail light assembly, is a car. A car is only a car when it has all of the attributes of a car and/or has the potential to function as a car. It is a little more vague when when looking at something that used to be a car (a rusty hunk of metal that once was a car) but something which has never had the ability to function as a car probably is not a car. Again, this does not refer to a broken down car or a scrapped car. I am talking about a group of parts that has never been a functional car. That is not a car.

2. At the other end: If a car has been completely assembled, is completely functional, has never left the factory, and is sitting in the factory at the end of the assembly line, awaiting someone to drive it out of the factory onto the parking lot for shipment, how can anyone in their right mind argue that it is NOT a car? Does the location of a car determine whether it is, or is not, a car? That is why those people are insane and should just be ignored.

That leads back to the analogous question, at what point on the assembly line, does the car become a car?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but my feeling is that when the assembled vehicle can function as a car, it is a car. It may not have GPS or A/C yet but if it has an engine and can be driven, it is a car.

In the human example, to me, as soon as a fetus can function as a human being outside of the uterus, it is a person. If a fetus can fall out of the uterus and live a normal life, it is clearly a person.

There are varying scientific opinions of exactly when in pregnancy that is (likely somewhere in the 20-24 weeks gestational age area) but there is no question that, after that time, the fetus can function outside the uterus unless there is some genetic abnormality or gestational problem.

One thing that always gets lost in the debates is that abortion is a medical procedure. The question is not whether you are for or against it. The question is when it is an appropriate procedure to be performed on any given pregnant woman. Outside of nut cases, no one wants to kill viable fully formed babies and no one wants women to carry fetuses that will not survive to full term. Therefore, the debate should center around when the medical procedure is appropriately used, not if you are for or against it.

Here is a reasonable approach:

- allow termination of pregnancies of non-viable fetuses at any stage (the baby is never going to live). No woman should have to carry a fetus that will never live (anencephaly, Tay-Sachs, certain trisomies, etc.) to term. It is cruel and unreasonable to ask a pregnant woman to do that and dangerous to her health.

- allow termination of early stage pregnancies as a result of rape or incest (because of the psychological damage to the woman)

- allow termination of pregnancy at any stage if the pregnancy itself is a risk to the life of the mother. A woman should not be expected to have to die, rather than terminate a pregnancy

- do not allow termination of healthy, viable fetuses once they reach the age that they can survive outside of the uterus because that is a distinct human being. If the pregnancy is unwanted, give the child up for adoption.

Given a reasonable. approach, the real remaining debate is in the case of a healthy early stage fetus, not yet able to survive outside the uterus, as an elective procedure simply because the pregnant woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. This is the part that will fuel the most disagreement. If you think that the fetus is not yet a person, that seems to be the woman's choice. Once the fetus reaches viability outside the uterus, it is no longer a choice because the fetus is a person that can survive outside of the uterus and that is killing a human being.

People will, of course, disagree, but this seems like a reasonable position.

The Defecation Is Finally About To Hit The Ventilation

Attorney General William Barr has appointed a US Attorney to investigate the origins of the "Russia collusion" probe.

Did you just hear a number of sphincters tighten in Washington DC? You will, if you haven't. The crooks are going to be exposed, and some may end up going to jail.

The Clinton supporters/Trump haters overplayed their hands. Once the election was over, if they had laid low and dropped the whole false "Russia collusion" story, and particularly if Hillary Clinton had not kept using it as an excuse for her miscalculations during the campaign, they might have slipped it by.

But..... they didn't. They were so upset by the election, and wanted so badly to interfere with President Trump's agenda, that they doubled down on the fake story. In retrospect, maybe they thought that they had to stick with it, or at least hope and pray that Mueller found something, anything, to get them off the hook. After all, they all knew what they had done was wrong. They just never thought Trump would win and it was never going to come to light if Clinton had won. If Robert Mueller had found ANY evidence of collusion (which he didn't despite having 16 or 17 rabidly partisan Clinton supporters on his team), the crooks could have used excuses like "we thought it might be true", or "I was just following leads", etc. and that would have been their out.

However, by making it more and more public, and having either duped Sen. Warner, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Nadler, etc. or having them all lie about it (in fairness, Senator Warner pretty much stopped lying about it once the Senate finished their investigation but Schiff and Nadler are still staying with their stories), it was going to fall with a heavy thud in one direction or the other.

It is overwhelmingly important to note that that this is not the FBI Inspector General doing this. FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz will still issue his report on what happened at the FBI. But, this is US Attorney John Durham, a top Connecticut federal prosecutor who, as opposed to Michael Horowitz, is:

- NOT limited to the FBI only and can investigate anyone involved, including members of the intelligence community, media members, and civilian political opposition research producers

- DOES have subpoena power and can force witnesses to testify or invoke the Fifth Amendment

- CAN impanel a grand jury to develop criminal charges against anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing

- CAN prosecute witnesses for perjury or obstructing justice if they do not honestly answer questions.

This is a real prosecutor with the power of the US government at his disposal.

Because of the scope of this investigation, the source of this false collusion story WILL include:

- Christopher Steele and his false "dossier",

- the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee colluding with Russians and Ukrainians to generate false opposition research stories

- Fusion GPS and their role in creating the false story, including the role of Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr of the Department of Justice. (As an aside, Bruce Ohr is looking better since it was revealed that he warned everyone that the dossier was bogus before the FISA warrants were requested.)

- CIA Director John Brennan leaking classified material to the media for political purposes,

- the various FBI and Department of Justice officials who presented false information as "verified" to the FISA court to obtain surveillance warrants against the Trump campaign,

- the FBI officials who planted covert operatives in the Trump campaign,

- the operatives that set up George Papadapolous with the false story about Russian information on Hillary Clinton

- the hacking of the Clinton email server and the classified material on it

- the unmasking of American citizens by Samantha Powers and others without justification (a crime)

- James Comey leaking classified material and attempting to influence the election outcome as FBI Director and perjuring himself in front of Congress

- James Clapper lying to Congress

- John Brennan lying to Congress

- Hillary Clinton deleting over 30,000 emails under subpoena (obstruction of justice, by definition, and a violation of the Federal Records Act)

- Hillary Clinton ordering the physical destruction of electronic devices so the contents could not be examined (obstruction of justice and, again, a violation of the Federal Records Act)

- former Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting with the husband of the subject of an investigation while the investigation was still ongoing.

and on and on.......

If you thought the Mueller Report was something to anticipate....wait until the truth about all of this comes out.

This news is EXACTLY why the left has been trying to smear Attorney General Barr. They knew this was coming and they tried to get some shots in first. It won't work. Those darned facts will keeping showing up. You can't beat facts with innuendo.

Releasing the Mueller Report is a very bad idea.

After listening to Trey Gowdy today, in an interview, I have to change my mind about the Mueller Report being released. As a political junkie, I really wanted to see it. I thought releasing it was a good idea. Now, I think releasing it is a really bad idea. This has nothing to do with the current President.

First, it is illegal to release a good portion of it. Grand jury testimony and classified information cannot be released, by law. It doesn't matter how much anyone, even powerful politicians, want to see it. Additionally, if Reps. Schiff or Nadler leak the information, which they will if they get it, they should go to prison.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor, said that any time an investigation is performed, the investigating body gives the information to the prosecutors. The prosecutors then determine whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. In this country, every single person, no matter what, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, with evidence, in a court of law.

If no evidence, or insufficient evidence, is present to indict any individual for a crime, the investigation concludes and the person being investigated is not publicly smeared with the accusations that were not supported with enough evidence.

Think about that. The Mueller investigation has concluded and the investigation is not recommending any additional charges against anyone. So...... what would be the point of demanding its release? Simple....... to smear anyone included in the investigation publicly, including those not being charged with doing anything wrong. Doing this does not allow the accused to defend themselves or to present exonerating or exculpatory evidence, as would be done in a court room. It is fundamentally unfair to the accused.

Looking toward the future, this would set a terrible precedent. Any individual can be accused of any heinous crime by almost anyone. If the investigation concludes showing that it never occurred, using this precedent, the mere fact that the investigation occurred can be put in the public sphere. As Secretary Donovan once said, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" Just like newspaper retractions on page twenty after a phony headline on page one, there is no removing that stain entirely.

The implications of this in politics are enormous. Every candidate will have accusations thrown at them from opposition research and, despite being cleared, those accusations will be in the public arena. If the prosecutors conclude that there is no crime, there is absolutely no reason to nitpick over findings in the report. Nothing will change and the accused individuals lose their rights to defend themselves. No matter where you fall in the political spectrum, this should scare you.

Take any politician, at random... say, imaginary Animal House Senator Blutarski.... and he is accused of having sex with under-aged children. An investigation is completed and there is ZERO evidence that he ever did anything of the sort. Using this precedent, news reporters and opposition politicians can demand that the details of the investigation be made public and the media will report on "the investigation into Senator Blutarski having sex with kids" even though there isn't a shred of truth to it. The media will defend their partisan actions by saying, "We didn't accuse him. We are just reporting that there is an investigation." What will that do to Senator Blutarski's re-election hopes? He is smeared for life. That will then happen in EVERY campaign, on both sides.

Think that scenario is far-fetched? The FBI already did it to Senator Ted Stevens, in order to make him lose his re-election. That is one of the reasons the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. That is precisely why it was done. After the election was over and he barely lost, Stevens was exonerated, but the damage was done. Just a note, one of the people who was identified as committing prosecutorial misconduct in that case was Andrew Weissmann. Recognize that name? No? He was a prominent member of the Mueller investigation.

Therefore, as much as I really want to see that report, releasing it to the public, or to partisans in Congress, for that matter, is a very bad precedent to set.

As an aside, technically, this investigation was illegal to begin with. Both James Comey and Lisa Page have testified, under oath, that there was no evidence of a crime when the investigation began. Therefore, the appointment of the Special Counsel violated the very statute that created the office, because the statute specifically states that one is appointed to investigate a specified crime. There was no specified crime and thus there should have never legally been an appointment. The only crime that led to the appointment was committed by former FBI Director James Comey when he leaked classified information to the media. intentionally.

Paul Krugman, the ultimate partisan hack, calling others "partisan"

Dear Paul Krugman,

Please go back on your medications. Let me point out some of the sewage that you published in your article:

1) You blame the Republican Party for being totally "partisan" in the Judge Kavanaugh hearings. You omit to mention that EVERY Democrat on the committee, and almost every Democrat in the entire US Senate, had essentially announced opposition to the nominee before he was even NAMED, much less before the hearings occurred. Stop with the "We should be bi-partisan" stuff until it works both ways. You don't get your way because you whine the loudest.

2) You say that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed unless the Republicans develop "A very late case of conscience". So.... you are suggesting that Republicans should not vote for a nominee who embodies their judicial philosophy just to please liberals? What planet are you from?

3) You also say that Judge Kavanaugh is "displaying an evasiveness utterly at odds with the probity we used to expect of Supreme Court justices". When???? prior to the Robert Bork hearings? Back in 1875? Or.....do you mean like the last eight nominations that are all currently on the US Supreme Court? Since Judge Kavanaugh is doing EXACTLY the same thing that all eight did (NO one offers an opinion on anything since the Bork hearings), that must be what you mean. However, I don't recall you protesting when Justices Kagan, Breyer, or Sotomayor did the same in their hearings.

4) You also say that President Trump "eked out an Electoral College win only with aid from a hostile foreign power." Really??? So 304-227 represents "eked out"? Looks more like "butt kicked". And, after more than eighteen months of investigation, the only "collusion" with Russia has been found on the Democrat side in obtaining phony opposition research and likely criminal FISA court warrants. By the way, Andrew McCabe is now in front of a grand jury investigation. If I was Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bill Preistap, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Glenn Simpson, James Baker, etc., I would be sweating bullets. The shoe is about to drop.

5) With no evidence at all, you also say that the conservative justices on the US Supreme Court will "abuse their power at every level.". Based on what, Chicken Little?

6) You also write that Judge Kavanaugh spent time in the President Bush White House, which used enhanced interrogation techniques, when it has been shown that he had NOTHING to do with that program. All of the attorneys who did legal work on the program have said as much. If someone is taking out a loan in a bank, at the time the bank is robbed by completely unknown people, would you advocate arresting that person for bank robbery because the person was in the building when it happened?

Mr. Krugman, you are the very definition of a partisan hack, and have been for years. Your calling other people names has ZERO credibility. And, you should note that, just today, Democrat Senators Heitkamp and Manchin have already said that they will likely vote for Kavanaugh. It is fairly likely that Democrat Senators Donnelly, McCaskill, Neslon, and Testor end up voting for him, since he is getting confirmed anyway and they are in tough elections in red states. It is next to impossible to argue that someone who has been a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge for twelve years, has written 307 opinions, and has Judge Kavanaugh's stellar academic record and credentials is "not qualified" to be on the court just because he won't be a rubber stamp for your policies.

The Media Is Whining About Being Exposed

If you are following the news, a number of press outlets coordinated editorials about freedom of the press. In truth, they are all bashing the President. No surprise there. That is pretty much to be expected, given their political views. All of those synchronized editorials are advocating for "press freedom". Exactly what is it that they currently can't do?

- The media can produce stories that are proven to be false with virtually no repercussions for producing them.

- The media can advocate in the portions of their publications and shows that are supposed to be straight news without stating that they are giving opinion.

- The media can publish classified material without penalty where anyone else would be convicted and jailed for doing the same thing. Example: They are about to sentence a NSA contractor (Reality Winter) to at least five years in prison for leaking classified information. They are doing nothing to the media that published it.

- They can slander and demean people but unless intentional malice can be proven by the victim (which is next to impossible), there is no consequence for the media.

Exactly what are these restrictions that they are referencing? Is it being held to a standard that they don't like? Generically, when a media outlet (print or electronic) produces a "news" story that turns out to be false, and someone points out publicly that the story is false, is that restricting freedom of the press? Or....is that actually allowing more freedom, because both sides are having their say publicly?

It appears that, after many decades of being able to control the public agenda and get away with whatever they wanted to do (up to and including riling up the public enough to start a war), the media has gotten more scrutiny in recent times. Additionally, with the advent of the internet, the corporate media is no longer the only outlet for information. Granted, a large portion of information on the internet is not subject to editorial management and contains a lot of false material. That is certainly true and one has to be skeptical of everything that shows up, even more so with outlandish claims. However, many major real news stories have broken in those same venues.

Examples:

1) The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was revealed by an internet blogger posting a story about Newsweek not publishing the sexual misconduct story, even though it was huge news. As it turned out, they were not publishing it to protect President Clinton, for political reasons, which is a real news story unto itself.

2) The fact that Dan Rather was using unquestionably forged documents to smear former President George W. Bush during his re-election campaign was revealed by internet tech bloggers. It cost Rather his job, appropriately so.

3) The false story about the Democratic National Committee servers being hacked by Russia via the internet was disproved by internet tech bloggers.

So.........it seems that the media companies have lost control of their monopoly on public disbursement of information. They don't like it. They are whining about it. However, they need to get over it because things will never go back to the way they were before the internet became available. If anything, there is more freedom to publish now than at any time in history. The caveat is that the consumers of information have to be much more skeptical and have to process information better. Most don't do it so there are obviously a lot of misinformed people and social media gets filled with nonsensical memes and posts. It is up to all of us the cull through the nonsense and believe only that which can be verified. The mainstream media wants blind trust. However, they have clearly demonstrated that they don't deserve blind trust. That is what has them upset. The curtain has been pulled back and "Oz The Magnificent" has been shown to be what he actually is.

Are Confederate Veterans considered US military veterans? Yes they are.

A friend posted a meme on Facebook that said that Confederate Veterans are the same as other US military veterans and there were some commenters that disputed that, using Snopes.com as their reference. Since I have found Snopes to be agenda-driven at times, I decided to find out. Interestingly, when you use a search engine like Google, the first page consists of all these goofy opinion sites like blogs and Snopes. In fact, Snopes says it isn't true. Snopes is wrong, sort of. They are commenting on the wrong section. The controversy was over Public Law 85-425 passed in 1958, specifically section 410. I wanted to read the actual text of the law. I finally found it on the House of Representatives site. The first thing that is amazing is that the entire law is less than one page. Take that.... Affordable Healthcare Act.

So, to answer the question, as we say, In God We Trust..... all others bring real data. First of all, Section 410 is the wrong section to refer to for this discussion. So... here is the real deal.

Public Law 85-425 amended the Veterans Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56). Most of the changes were changes in rates of pensions paid. However, this is the ACTUAL text of the law that added subsection (e) of Section 432 (not 410, the one people always mistakenly refer to).

"3) Section 432 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term “veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active, military or naval service” includes active service in such forces.”

That could NOT be clearer despite what any biased observer might think.

So..moving on....what is Section 410? Item 9 of the 85-425 law added a new Section 410 which made pensions equal for Confederate and US veterans. The ACTUAL text of that is this:

9) Immediately above Section 411, insert the following: “Confederate Forces Veterans” “Section 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States.”

I will also point out another mistake that Snopes is making. The web site describes the law as a "feel good" measure because there may not have been any Confederate veterans alive at the time of its passage. There may or may not have been any Union Veterans alive at the time, either. That doesn't matter. The law does have actual consequences, not the least of which is that unmarked graves of Confederate veterans can have government-funded tombstones placed, to honor them, by the Veterans Administration, That is true, to this day. Additionally, older veterans who had married markedly younger women still had their widows protected by pensions.

So, in summary, Confederate Veterans are, by law, considered the same as other US veterans and had equal benefits under the law. Don't believe it??? Don't rely on opinion sites. Read it yourself.

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf

August 18, 2018 Summary of the Mueller Investigation, to this point

For those who find it hard to keep up with it all, because they have other things to do, a summary, to this point:

1) James Wolfe, chief of security at the Senate Intelligence Committee, was sleeping with a 20-something New York Times reporter, Ali Watkins . He leaks the fact that minor Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was interviewed by the FBI to his girlfriend who is dumb enough to run it, along with the editors of the Times, implying that Page was working with the Russians. In truth, Page was approached by a Russian agent and fully cooperated with the FBI but, of course, this is nothing close to what was reported in the Times. Lots of people who dislike then-candidate Trump go nuts over the bogus story.

Wolfe has since been fired and Watkins is big trouble for apparently "sleeping her way to stories".

2) The Clinton Campaign hires Fusion GPS, through the Perkins Coie law firm, in order to hide their involvement, to dig up dirt on then-candidate Trump. Fusion GPS hires, Nellie Ohr, the wife of then fourth-ranked person at the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, and former British spy Christopher Steele to come up with stuff to use against then-candidate Trump. Between Ohr and Steele, they come up with the infamous "dossier" which turns out to be unverified nonsense. Steele has testified as much under oath.

Ohr has been demoted twice. Steele is being sued for libel. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS has recently been discovered to have perjured himself in front of Congress.

3) Both former CIA Director John Brennan and Senator John McCain shop the phony documents around to the FBI and news media. Most news outlets know the dossier is nonsense and will not publish it. Eventually, the web site Buzzfeed does, even though they know it is nonsense.

4) Former FBI Director James Comey starts an investigation based on the phony story and document. The investigation is prioritized over the Clinton investigation by the infamous FBI agent Peter Strzok. He, his lover Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe are all in on it. Counter intelligence head Bill Priestap and FBI General Counsel James Baker are in on it. They ask for a FISA warrant and lie by saying the evidence is "verified", which is absolutely untrue. One of the FISA requests is signed by current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is still participating in the process even though he is a potential witness or co-conspirator.

James Comey gets fired and freely admits to violating the law by intentionally leaking classified material to the press. Rosenstein won't recuse himself, even though he is up to his neck in it. BIll Priestap is gone from the FBI. Peter Strzok is fired. Lisa Page was fired. Andrew McCabe was fired three days before he could retire. Baker has been "reassigned" from the highest legal post in the FBI (That is FBI talk for fired from an important job).

5) Comey commits a felony (leaking classified material knowingly to a friend to give to the media) in order to assure that a Special Counsel is appointed. Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (there is that name again) appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel. However, the special counsel statute specifies that a special counsel is only appointed to investigate a crime. In the appointment documents, there is NO alleged crime mentioned. Additionally, "collusion" is NOT a crime under federal law. So..... what was he appointed to investigate?

6) The Special Counsel, after almost two years, has indicted some Russians for attempting to hack US elections. Every senior official who has testified has said that the election was IN NO WAY effected by their efforts. They have also indicted Rick Gates and Paul Manafort for some business dealings (for which Manafort had previously been cleared by the DOJ) which occurred six or seven years BEFORE the election and had nothing to do with the election or the President. They do not even look into Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta's brother, Tony Podesta, for doing the exact same thing. They also indicted Michael Flynn for mis-remembering a conversation that was not a crime. Yes, that is correct, they prosecuted him for lying about something that was never a crime. (Side note: This is not a new thing. You might remember that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby for outing a clandestine agent, who everyone knew was not a clandestine agent, and it had already been revealed that Richard Armitage was the one who outed her. Made no difference to Fitzgerald, He just wanted to make a name for himself.)

Therefore, in summary, the entire Mueller investigation was initiated by bogus documents and criminal activity by law federal law enforcement officials. Almost all of those officials have been fired. It is hard to make the argument that they did nothing wrong. As a result of the Mueller investigation, with the exception of the inconsequential Russian hackers (who will never face justice in the US), Paul Manafort and Rick Gates (who made some shady financial deals many years ago that had nothing to do with the election), and Michael Flynn (for lying about something that was not a crime), ALL of the documented crimes have been committed by members of the FBI (Comey, Priestap, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker), a friend of the former Director of the FBI (the college professor who leaked classified material from Comey to the media), Department of Justice officials (Rosenstein and whoever signed the other FISA requests), a former CIA Director (Brennan), and the head of Fusion GPS (Simpson, perjury). There has been nothing revealed about the President, or anything to do with his campaign, trying to do something nefarious in the election. If there was, we would no by now. Rep. Adam Schiff couldn't keep a secret about his family if he thought they was political gain in it being leaked.