05:16 GMT +319 January 2020
Listen Live

    IG Report Finds Flaws in FISA Process, Durham's Statement Shows Larger Problems

    The Critical Hour
    Get short URL
    by
    0 0 0
    Subscribe

    On this episode of The Critical Hour, Dr. Wilmer Leon is joined by Lee Stranahan, co-host of Fault Lines on Sputnik News Radio.

    "The US Justice Department’s internal watchdog said it found numerous errors but no evidence of political bias by the FBI when it opened an investigation into contacts between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia in 2016," Reuters reported Monday. This will not be the last word on the subject. So, what did Inspector General Michael Horowitz find? According to Reuters, he found "a total of 17 'basic and fundamental' errors and omissions in the original application and all subsequent renewals to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). Those errors made the case appear stronger than it was, Horowitz said.” However, he also found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to surveil Trump campaign adviser of Carter Page. That seems a bit incongruent to me. This shows that FBI lawyers, the lead domestic investigative branch of this government, falsified evidence to get spying warrants. This calls into question — and I believe is resulting in a revamping of — the entire FISA process, which, by the way, many, including myself and those here at Sputnik, have been challenging for years.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met in Paris Monday in an attempt to peacefully resolve the long-running conflict in eastern Ukraine. The meeting, known as the Normandy Four summit, is also being attended by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. What's going on here?

    We could see articles of impeachment against US President Donald Trump late this week. Where are we in this process now? So as of Monday, the impeachathon has moved from witnesses to constitutional scholars to attorneys. The House Judiciary Committee heard exchanges of testimony between the Democratic and Republican lawyers. Why call on lawyers who have nothing to add to what other witnesses already said? The Associated Press reported: "In what amounted to the opening argument in the effort to impeach President Trump, the lawyer for Judiciary Democrats told the committee that the president’s actions were 'so brazen' that there was no question that he had abused his power to advance his own political interests over those of the nation. 'The evidence is overwhelming,' said Barry H. Berke." Is that true, and does it matter to the American people?

    GUESTS:

    Lee Stranahan — Co-host of Fault Lines on Sputnik News Radio.    

    Mark Sleboda — International affairs and security analyst.    

    Daniel Lazare — Journalist and author of three books: "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's Undeclared War."  

    We'd love to get your feedback at radio@sputniknews.com

    Tags:
    Trump administration, China, Ukraine, impeachment, watchdog, FBI, nuclear treaty
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik