Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been all over the media touting the fact that the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz is scheduled to testify about the long-delayed, long-awaited report on FISA abuses on December 11, 2019.

Even promising that the report was likely to be released a few days earlier so the media has enough time to review the voluminous report. Many believe that the report will reveal what actions were taken when the FBI applied for FISA court surveillance warrants to surveil U.S. citizens and which allowed the agency to spy on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Some hope that there will be criminal referrals appended to the report. Considering that the Inspector General cannot issue subpoenas or impanel a Grand Jury, there is always another step in the process – all subject to the political bugaboo: "prosecutorial discretion."

The more I read about the Democrat’s assertion that nobody is above the law, the more I have come to realize that there is nobody in power who appears to have the political will to prosecute politically-connected high-level Democrats and that today’s media will say little or nothing about this failure to achieve justice in the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States.

So I am taking all of the conservative pronouncements of upcoming justice in the reports of Attorney General William Barr, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, John Durham, and the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz with a grain of salt.

Consider the recently released “audit” report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz which found “numerous issues” with how the FBI deals with secret sources and confidential informants. The report released November 19, 2019, and titled  “Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes, Audit Report 20-009” is freely available on the DOJ IG website (Summary | Full Report | Video | Press Release)

Results in Brief…

We found that the FBI's vetting process for CHSs, known as validation, did not comply with the Attorney General Guidelines. We also found deficiencies in the FBl's long-term CHS validation reports which are relied upon by FBI and Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) officials in determining the continued use of a CHS. Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs.

Our report contains 16 recommendations to help the FBI better manage its CHS program.

The FBI’s response to the draft audit report…

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to your office's report entitled. Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes.

The Human Source Review Committee (HSRC) comprised of DOJ and FBI has had a positive impact as 33% of the CHS files reviewed between February 2016 and November 2018 were closed, or continued operation with conditions added including caveats or recommendations. The FBI looks forward to improving the HSRC in order to address the highest risk CHSs in a timely manner.

We agree it is important to continue to improve the validation process to ensure compliance with the AG Guidelines. The FBI has already initiated meetings with DOJ to address possible revisions to the AG Guidelines to establish a better validation policy with a cohesive CHS validation strategy. In that regard, we concur with your fourteen recommendations for the FBI and the two recommendations for the Department and FBI.

And then there is footnote 20…

20 While the AG Guidelines require all long-term CHSs to receive an enhanced validation, those CHSs providing information for use in national security investigations or foreign intelligence collections are exempt from the HSRC requirements.

Amazing, since many individuals caught up in the Trump/Russia “Collusion” case were either foreign citizens or U.S. citizens operating abroad. Australian, British, French, or Italian. All were represented and exempt from enhanced validation as noted in Footnote 20.

Through published reports in the legacy media, we can see where many of the “Confidential Human Sources” used by the FBI in the 2016 election scandal were deeply flawed, their information appears to be deliberately deceptive and politically-motivated, and led to severe consequences for individuals caught up in a web of lies, half-truths, and fanciful supposition. Yet, I am looking for the section on who will be held accountable for these failures. Or, like good bureaucratic apparatchiks, will the blame be declared “systemic” and the responsibility diffused to the point where nobody will be held accountable for deliberate, and possibly criminal, misuse of the process by knowing and complicit individuals.

This is the same type of report created by the General Accountability Office who notes the failure of systems and controls to prevent the loss of large sums of money or government-owned property but never seems to point the finger at specific individuals with a recommendation and referral for prosecution. Because, according to the auditors, that is not their job and up to law enforcement and others.

IT APPEARS THAT LADY JUSTICE IS A DEMOCRAT

I believe that people like Barack Obama, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, and James Clapper will never be successfully prosecuted and will remain “protected individuals.”

I also believe that if anyone will be prosecuted, it will be low-level intelligence, law enforcement, and State Department operatives, including but not limited to Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Peter Strzok,  Lisa Page, etc.

And that such prosecutions will be so flawed as to prevent severe penalties – most likely for lying to the government (18 U.S. Code. § 1001 which prohibits making false statements to the government) and not part of a broader criminal conspiracy to interfere with a presidential election. (5 U.S. Code § 7323 which prohibits a government employee from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.).

Bottom line…

It is unlikely that there will be safeguards to protect the 2020 presidential election, especially since the House Democrats are already abusing their power as they conspire to use their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of the election. All courtesy of the “Separation of Powers” which prevents the Executive Branch from unduly interfering in the activities of sitting Members of Congress or their staffs.

Or that old standby, prosecutorial discretions, which saw Hillary Clinton considered only for her violation of the Espionage Act – where James Comey added an additional non-existent element to the law (“Intent”) and then gave her a pass from prosecution although he usurped the power of the Department of Justice to do so. You will notice that she was not charged with perjury, lying to the government, destruction of documents under subpoena, theft of government property, and other criminal activities.

Even if President Trump is reelected and the GOP retakes the House of Representatives, I would not look for justice as the bureaucracy takes care of its own and survives no matter which party might be in power.

We are majorly and thoroughly screwed.

-- steve