Look over there! Something shiny!: Democrats seek to distract with Cohen hearing

The American people have been subjected to a hysterical narrative ungrounded to reality about the election of its president, a supposed Russian agent. Top federal officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI openly plotted to violate the Constitution and depose the lawfully elected president.  But House Democrats do not want to focus on this seditious behavior since apparently treason is OK if it is directed at someone you don’t like.

Instead, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform is going to hold an asinine hearing meant to embarrass President Trump while he is negotiating with a nuclear-powered hostile nation. The hearing is meant to do nothing but distract America with a shiny object named Michael Cohen, from what the president is trying to accomplish with North Korea. The hearing is intended to cover up the staggering improprieties and crimes committed by former Obama officials and senior-level officials at the DOJ and the FBI. I guess that’s why the first thing the new majority did when it took over was to take “government” out of oversight. Being a Democrat apparently means never having to question the efficacy of government.

{mosads}In the past several weeks the nation has learned the terrifying lengths the DOJ/FBI went through to first stop President Trump from winning the election, then to get him out of office once he won. One of the more disturbing facts we have recently learned is that DOJ/FBI officials didn’t even read the warrants they were signing.

The House should be focusing on the systemic failures of the DOJ/FBI, not a sideshow by a perjurer. When it comes to obtaining FISA warrants, there is supposed to be a thorough review process in place to ensure the civil rights of American citizens are not violated. It is known as the Woods Procedures. Each government attorney is supposed to carefully review the documents to ensure the accuracy of the information that is to be presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). When that official signs their name to the warrant, they are vouching for the veracity of the information contained in the document. How can officials sign and vouch for the information within a document if they never read it? If they do sign it without reading it, isn’t that lying to the court? Is this an ethical violation for the prosecutors involved?

We need answers to the question of the Woods Procedure. The procedure was established in April 2001 and is supposed to be a multi-layered review of information within the warrant. The purpose of the procedure is to prevent false or unverified information from reaching the FISC. Keep in mind, there is no defense team or presentation of contrary evidence. This is a one-way presentation to a judge, so it is incumbent upon the prosecutors to be thorough and honest with the court. We know this process was not followed in the FISA application for Carter Page, as former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said so.

McCabe went before the House Intelligence Committee and said the no warrant would have been sought without the infamous hoax called the Steele dossier (a “dossier” sounds so James Bond, doesn’t it? It’s actually akin to a manila folder with some documents, you know, like your tax records), But former FBI Director James Comey stated the “dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” That is probably the most honest thing he has said about this matter. His claim is further backed up by former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Bill Priestap who said the corroboration of the “dossier” was in its “infancy.”

{mossecondads}McCabe is now on has been on a self-aggrandizing book tour, after being fired for good cause. Throughout his money seeking tour, McCabe has utterly failed to produce a scintilla of evidence connecting President Trump and Russia or obstruction by the president. But what he did draw light to was a plan within the upper echelons of the DOJ/FBI to oust President Trump because they didn’t like his personnel decisions. This may be better known as sedition, seeing as he was a top government official. It is certainly worth a DOJ investigation to determine if there was sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition. 

McCabe stated Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed efforts to get Cabinet members to support the invocation of the 25th Amendment. McCabe also stated Rosenstein was willing to wear a wire into the White House when he talks to the president. Rosenstein denied the charges, but McCabe’s accusations are backed up by sworn testimony from James Baker. Doesn’t an attempted coup sound like something the Oversight Committee should look into?

Decent Americans, Democrat and Republican, should demand a full investigation of an effort to unlawfully remove a sitting president. Instead, the Oversight Committee is going to focus on a lying tax cheat, in the hopes he gives the majority a soundbite for the next election.

Gosar represents the 4th District of Arizona and is a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.