Skip to content

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Because no one
is above the law!

Donate

Tom Fitton's Weekly Update

FBI Investigated President Trump’s Tweets Critical of Obama and FBI

Strzok-Page Emails Show FBI Investigated President Trump’s Tweets Critical of Obama and FBI
Still Fighting or Our First Amendment Rights in Washington, DC
Professor Sued by Muslim Student, Punished by College Wins in Court
The Left Threatens Violence Over a Potential Election Loss

Strzok-Page Emails Show FBI Investigated President Trump’s Tweets Critical of Obama and FBI

Judicial Watch today released emails received from the Department of Justice sent by former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. The records include an email from Strzok to other FBI officials about Trump’s tweets regarding them spying on him, as well as their interaction with other media outlets including CNN.

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)). The FBI is only processing the records at a rate of 500 pages per month and has refused to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these emails will not be completed until late 2021 at the earliest.

On March 18, 2017, Strzok emails his boss, then-Asst. Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, along with colleagues Jon Moffa and Page, about his research into President Trump’s tweets concerning his being wiretapped:

Sending the tweets in question along with posting times. Doing some research, time stamping in Twitter can be glitchy … [T]he tweet times below were all -3 hours from east coast time, which I adjusted (ie, the first listed as 3:35am). I think I recall reporting at the time described the tweets as occurring around 630, not 330.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:35 AM

Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:52 AM

I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 6:52 AM

How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! – Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 7:02 AM

On March 29, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey’s chief of staff, Jim Rybicki, emails then-Executive Assistant Director, National Security Branch Carl Ghattas, former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap, then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker about a “Sensitive Matter Briefing:”

Rybicki writes, “The Director would like a briefing tomorrow (Thursday) on the sensitive application. [Emphasis added] I just spoke to Pete and gave him the scope. Will probably be at 5pm after the unmasking briefing.”

McCabe replies to Strzok and Ghattas, saying, “Any idea what’s driving this?”

Strzok replies, “Jim R said OAG told him the AG wanted a brief in advance of signing and would want a little bit of time to think about it.”

The second renewal application and order of the original FISA warrant on Carter Page was filed one week later, on April 7, 2017. Both the April 7 and June 29, 2017, applications were withdrawn due to fraud.

These astonishing emails, which have been hidden for years, show the Comey FBI was investigating President Trump over his critical tweets of the agency and Obama’s spying abuse and misconduct. These emails also show that Comey was intimately involved with the illegal and dishonest FISA spy operation against President Trump. Where is Durham?

On March 20, 2017, Strzok emails Page, Moffa and a redacted General Counsel official a “Secret” amendment submitted to the FISA court by the DOJ on September 29, 2006, which changed the FBI’s “Standard Minimization Procedures for Electronic Surveillance and Physical Search.” Strzok notes that the document “contains the changes to who/how indexing is done.” The amendment, which was co-authored in 2006 by then-Counsel for Intelligence Policy James Baker was meant to comply with the FISA court’s order of December 2005 “to broaden the category of FBI personnel who can enter U.S. person information into ‘general FBI indices’ from the current limitation that only the ‘supervising case agent’ may authorize such indexing and that the Attorney General would also authorize the indexing of U.S. person information that is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance.”

On March 22, 2017, Strzok emails Moffa and a redacted official saying that, in response to a question from “Wolf” [presumably Wolf Blitzer of CNN] “about what you do if you’re in the FBI,” former CIA officer and frequent CNN guest Phil Mudd responded: “first thing I tell my counterintelligence guys is, slow down, make sure you do everything right. When this eventually becomes public, it will be more picked over than even the Clinton investigation was.” Strzok then tells Moffa: “He’s right. And that worries me.”

On March 24, 2017, reporter Matt Zapotosky of The Washington Post emails two unidentified FBI officials, noting that, in his review of government records relating to Hillary Clinton, he discovered a page in which “a box is checked to indicate the material is ‘Grand Jury Material.’ Is that right? I don’t think anyone had ever been aware of a sitting grand jury in the Clinton case.”

The Zapotosky email then gets forwarded to other FBI officials, including Page, and a lengthy, redacted email exchange follows. Eventually, Page adds Strzok to the exchange, saying, “Adding Pete, just to double check my work.” Strzok’s response is also redacted. One of the redacted officials replies to Strzok, saying, “AD Kortan asked if this could just be about legal process to get access.” Strzok responds, “It might be [redacted].”

On March 6, 2017, Page forwards to Strzok a Washington Examiner article sent to her from the General Counsel’s Office discussing how the GAO determined many sensitive US government offices and officials were being housed in property owned by companies connected to foreign governments like China, posing a security threat.

Page asked Strzok, “Did you hear about this?”

Strzok replies, “I hadn’t, thank you.”

Strzok forwarded the article to Dina Corsi, of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, “FYI.” A redacted official in the Counterintelligence Division responds, “Thank you for highlighting this to us!” Strzok forwards that response to Page, and says, “Our property ci. folks hadn’t heard either.”

On March 23, 2017, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt emails FBI Asst. Dir. Michael Kortan saying:

Mike: Wanted to flag you on something. Three of my colleagues are working on a story about the Russia investigation. They’re told that Jared Kusher [sic] is among the individuals who the F.B.I. is scrutinizing for their meetings with Russians. My colleagues were told that Ambassador Kislyak, after meeting with Kushner and General Flynn in early December at Trump Tower, set up a meeting with Kushner and a Russian banker. Kushner ultimately met with the Russian banker. The banker worked for Alpha Bank. Thanks, Mike.

Schmidt’s email is forwarded by Kortan to Lisa Page. Page forwards it to Strzok and Moffa, saying “Just wanted you both to have this.”

On April 3, 2017, a redacted official in the FBI Washington Field Office emails Strzok a link to a Guardian article titled “Michael Flynn: New Evidence Spy Chiefs Had Concerns about Russia Ties,” saying, “Im [sic] sure you are tracking, but this has gotten too deep.” Strzok replies, “I wasn’t. WTF is this…” Strzok then forwards the exchange to Page, saying “Not great.”

On April 4, 2017, former FBI Asst. Dir. John Giacalone emails Priestap and Strzok to advise them that the New York Times’ reporters Adam Goldman and Mike Appuzzo were doing a story on the Hillary server investigation. Giacalone stated, “[R]eceived referral obligated to open a case; knew at some point both political parties would have issues during and at conclusion of investigation; and case agents did outstanding investigative work leaving no stone un-turned.”

On March 19, 2017, Strzok forwards a Washington Post article to Jon Moffa and other redacted persons discussing disclosures that FBI official Bill Evanina made in a public speech about private contractors stealing national security information. Strzok says, “Any idea what he’s talking about?” A redacted Unit Chief of CD-40 replies, “No idea. I queried the other UCs [Unit Chiefs] and they didn’t know either.” Moffa responds, “Who is Evanina’s boss at the bureau? It really seems like a weird dynamic where there is no requirement for him to coordinate with the AD of CD [Asst. Director of the Counterintelligence Division].” Strzok forwards Moffa’s response to Lisa Page, saying, “A fine question…”

On February 10, 2017, a Senate staffer sent a letter to the FBI which a FBI congressional liaison official forwards on to others in the FBI, indicating that Sen. Claire McCaskill was “seeking a closed briefing on any investigation the FBI is conducting on General Flynn and his communications with the Russian government.” The redacted FBI forwarder adds, “Obviously we would never provide a briefing on any pending investigation, let alone acknowledge one, so this is just for awareness on your end.” The email exchange is then forwarded on to Strzok, Jennifer Boone, and other FBI officials. Strzok forwards it to Page “FYSA.”

On February 14, 2017, Strzok forwards Priestap a New York Times article titled “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.” In his cover note, Strzok states, “This is the article Mike K [presumably Kortan] gave a heads up on earlier. Contains flat out inaccuracies. I will sit down with [redacted] early and draft some comments in advance of D meeting with Burr.”

Priestap replies, “Thank you and, yes, please get info to [redacted] Lisa and Rybicki (and cc me), as soon as you have finished.” Strzok then forwards the exchange to Page, Rybicki, Jon Moffa and an unidentified person, saying, “See thread below. There are several significant errors/inaccuracies in the NYT article this evening. We’ll get you a red-lined copy with comments first thing tomorrow in advance of D meeting with Burr.”

On February 15, 2017, Michael Kortan emails Strzok about the same piece, saying, “Pete, Can you send me you [sic] latest analysis on the NYT story from last night?” Strzok replies, “Just sent on red side.”

In a February 15, 2017, email to Page, Strzok mocks a New York Times correction that, “at least three, not at least four” people were examined by the FBI. Strzok says, “Ha! ‘Three’!”

On March 20, 2017, Strzok forwards to Page and an unidentified official a Washington Post article titled “President Trump’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Twitter Day” and Strzok says, “This does a good job of parsing through the various tweets.

On March 2, 2017, a redacted official in Comey’s office emails Strzok and Page, saying,“I believe Mike already discussed with Lisa the need to bring the NYTs back in today for a short meeting…. Can we squeeze something in perhaps at 4p?” Strzok replies, “Works for me.”

On March 2, 2017, Strzok forwards to Page, Moffa and Priestap a Politico article titled “Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak is Washington’s Most Dangerous Diplomat.” Strzok states, “Politico has the Mayflower speech, but ‘it is not clear whether either Sessions or Trump spoke at any length to Kislyak at Trump’s foreign speech in April’, citing the article. Strzok adds, “Also interesting if true, the only opportunity to meet would be at the reception in advance of the speech.”

On March 6, 2017, Strzok emails Page “Can you call my desk [redacted]?” Pages replies, “Do we really need to talk tonight?” Strzok responds, “No, but this re-write needs to go out tonight. So any thoughts welcome [redacted]. And I hope Andy is good with the re-scoping.”

On March 6, 2017, Strzok sends an email with the subject “AG letter to Judiciary,” along with an attachment called “Sessions, 03-06-17, letter, testimony.pdf.” Strzok pastes a paragraph of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions testimony into the cover email, in which Sessions describes the occasion and content of the time he met with Russian Amb. Sergey Kislyak.

On March 10, 2019, Page emails Strzok saying, “NPR had a very informative story on the Emoluments Clause this morning. You should totally listen.” Strzok replied, “I will. You spell that all by yourself? I’d have ended up with immollomints. <smiley emoji>”

On March 13, 2017, then-Dep. Asst. Attorney General George Toscas emails Strzok, copying Dep. Asst AG David Laufman, stating,“As mentioned last week, the Acting DAG [Dana Boente] has requested a weekly update on the sensitive matter.”

On March 23, 2017, Lisa Page sends an email to Moffa, Strzok and several other FBI unidentified officials with the subject line “Meeting with the DI” [probably Directorate of Intelligence] and says, “Hi friends [redacted]. Thanks guys. Lisa” Someone in the General Counsel’s office responds, “Not a problem. I’ll begin to lay the groundwork.” Moffa then replies, “It sounds like you have pretty routine interaction up there, but if I can help at all in reaching out to them, just say the word and I’ll do it… J”

On March 29, 2017, Strzok emails Page, “It makes me angry” that Sen. Chuck Grassley had published a letter to Director Comey calling for answers from the FBI as to how Deputy Director Andrew McCabe could have overseen the FBI investigation into Trump-Russian “collusion.” Grassley pointed out that McCabe’s wife had accepted $700,000 from associates of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, during his wife’s run for the Virginia state Senate.

On March 30, 2017, a redacted official emails Moffa and Strzok, advising them to read Gizmodo about the “D’s [Director’s] private Twitter acct.” Moffa replies, “I did not already know but I just read the whole thing. I have to say I didn’t expect that …” The unidentified official replies, “[I]f true, my respect for the D only solidifies when I see that he named himself after America’s preeminent 20th century political theologian.” (Gizmodo revealed that day that Comey used the Twitter handle “Reinhold Niebuhr,” who was a prominent American Marxist and Protestant theologian.)

On March 31, 2017, the Democratic Staff Director on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sends an email to the FBI congressional liaison office saying “RM [Adam] Schiff will be viewing the documents at the White House this afternoon and he requests your agencies in-person assistance in verifying the authenticity of the documents and your technical assistance in reviewing them.”

Judicial Watch has been doing the heavy lifting in this case for quite a while. In July 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered emails showing Strzok, Page and other top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”

In February 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for “the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use a non-state.gov email account “out of convenience” and that “it proved to be anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology and the “convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview.

Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.

In January 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.

In November 2019, Judicial Watch revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.

Also in November, Judicial Watch uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email] chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of paragraphs.”

In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the “electronic communication” (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.

Still Fighting or Our First Amendment Rights in Washington, DC

In our fight for our First Amendment rights, Judicial Watch filed an opposition to a request to dismiss our civil rights lawsuit against Bowser and other responsible DC officials who failed to grant us permission to paint “Because No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC street.

We told the court that Mayor Bowser and the other DC officials acted arbitrarily and engaged in prohibited viewpoint discrimination in failing to grant our request.

The lawsuit (Judicial Watch. v. Muriel Bowser, et al. (No. 1:20-cv-01789)) arose after two political messages – “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” – were painted on 16th Street NW, across from the White House.

Here’s the history.

On June 5, 2020, after days of protests and riots in Washington DC led by the Black Lives Matter movement, a team of artists, residents, District employees, and demonstrators painted “Black Lives Matter” and the District’s crest, which resembles three stars above an “equals” sign, on 16th Street NW. The following day, demonstrators painted “Defund the Police,” a key demand of the Black Lives Matter movement, alongside the “Black Lives Matter” message. The District government admits that the demonstrators lacked permission to paint “Defund the Police” on the street. To a reasonable viewer, the entire message can be read “Black Lives Matter Equals Defund the Police.”

On June 10, 2020, we asked the Mayor Bowser for permission to paint our motto, “Because No One Is Above the Law!” on a DC street.  Mayor Bowser and other District officials largely ignored our request. Deputy Mayor John Falcicchio eventually told us to pursue a permit through the District Department of Transportation’s online permit application process, but the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Transportation Director Jeffrey Martoonian now admit there is no permit for street painting.

At least two other organizations also formally requested permission to paint their own expressive messages on the District’s streets after “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” were painted on 16th Street. Each organization was treated very differently from the painters of “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police.”

When in late June 2020 a veterans’ advocacy group requested permission to paint “Veterans Lives Matter” on the street in front of the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a block from the “Black Lives Matter Equals Defund the Police” message, the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel told the group they could not do so unless the street was closed. The Mayor’s attorney also told the group that they could apply for a block party or special-event permit to have the street closed on a temporary basis.

When a student organization sought to paint “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a District street in early August 2020, police reportedly told them they could do so, then told them they could not do so. When they tried to write their message in chalk on a nearby sidewalk, they were arrested.

As we demonstrated in our opposition (Plf’s Opposition to Defs’ Motion to Dismiss (Combined & File Stamped) p. 7):

Whether the District’s streets are considered traditional public fora, designated or limited public fora, or nonpublic fora, the First Amendment forbids arbitrary treatment of requests to engage in expressive conduct and viewpoint discrimination.

We argue that the Mayor and other DC officials did the opposite of what the First Amendment requires: They acted arbitrarily and discriminated against us because of our message.

Mayor Bowser gave us the runaround rather than equal access to the District’s streets to paint our ‘Because No One is Above the Law!’ message. Our First Amendment rights shouldn’t take a back seat to the Mayor’s political promotion of ‘BLM/Defund the Police’.

 

Professor Sued by Muslim Student, Punished by College Wins in Court

Every now and then we get good news from the political correctness tsunami engulfing our colleges and universities. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has such a story about a professor in Arizona under attack by the terrorist front group CAIR.

A federal court has ruled in favor of a professor thrown under the bus by his public college after a Muslim student claimed the Islamic terrorism portion of a world politics class violated his Constitutional rights. The course is offered at Scottsdale Community College (SCC) in Arizona, which is part of the Maricopa County Community College District. It is taught by Nicholas Damask, a veteran professor who organizes the course into six modules that cover world politics. One is dedicated to defining and analyzing Islamic terrorism. Students are required to read excerpts from a book called “Future Jihad” written by a Lebanese-born Middle East expert who has worked with the U.S. departments of Justice, Defense and State.

A Muslim student, Mohamed Sabra, sued Professor Damask and the Maricopa County Community College District in June for violating his First Amendment right by supposedly condemning his religion. In the complaint, filed by the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Sabra demands that Damask stop teaching the materials in question until they “do not have the primary effect of disapproving of Islam.” Founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, CAIR was named as a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. In a statement announcing the lawsuit against the Arizona college district, CAIR alleges that Sabra “was punished for refusing to agree with an anti-Muslim professor’s unconstitutional condemnations of Islam during a Political Science class” and that he was forced to disavow his religion.

Like many taxpayer-funded academic institutions nationwide, SCC caved into the left’s demands and administrators quickly apologized and tried to pressure the professor into signing an apology letter written by the college’s marketing team. The Maricopa County Community College District also caved in, launching an investigation and warning that the content of Damask’s course would be reviewed for “insensitivities.” Damask, who has taught world politics for more than two decades, stood up to his employer and refused to apologize. He eventually contacted a group dedicated to defending rights such as freedom of speech and religion, due process and legal equality at America’s colleges and universities. The nonprofit, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), sent a letter to SCC’s president pointing out that the school’s actions—as well as the district’s—were flatly inconsistent with the college’s First Amendment obligations and the basic tenets of academic freedom. “Further, the implication that Damask is being investigated by the college’s governing board will have an impermissible chilling effect on faculty expression and teaching,” the letter states. Publicly committing Damask to apologizing and a mandate that the content in question will be removed from his course is alarming and inconsistent with his rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom under both the First Amendment and Arizona law, according to FIRE.

This month a federal court settled the issue, dismissing the lawsuit against the professor and the community college district, which has 10 campuses. In the ruling Judge Susan Brnovich writes that a curriculum that “merely conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.” She also writes that the Muslim student was not required to adopt the views expressed by the professor or the course’s required reading, but only to demonstrate an understanding of the material taught. “Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to attitudes and outlooks at odds with his own religious perspective,” the ruling states. Appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2018, Judge Brnovich also writes this in her order: “Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam.”

Standing up to these circumstances is not easy.

The Left Threatens Violence Over a Potential Election Loss

This will be no ordinary count the vote, declare a winner election. The Left is already planning and implementing the chaos it hopes will counter the potential reelection of President Trump. And all the while it is projecting this treachery onto Trump – witness Al Gore’s hysterical suggestion that the military may have to remove him.

Now comes more evidence of this dangerous plan. Micah Morrison, our chief investigative reporter, describes it in his Investigative Bulletin.

American history is no stranger to heated election disputes. In 1824, Adams beat Jackson in a race thrown to the House of Representatives. In 1876, Hayes beat Tilden in a race that ended Reconstruction. In 1888, Harrison lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, beating Grover Cleveland. In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon, allegedly benefiting from vote fraud in Texas and Illinois. In 2000, Bush beat Gore in an election fought through Florida and up the Supreme Court.

In none of these cases, did the Republic fall. But today is different, if you believe the dire warnings from what’s being billed as a “bipartisan group” of government officials and election experts.

Today, the end is near. The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) warns of an “alarming” election season marked by “illegal actions,” defiance of the popular vote, “chaos and violence in the streets,” federal seizure of mail-in ballots, “violent action,” and attempts to “bribe and silence associates, declassify sensitive documents,” and pillage the Treasury.

These paranoid polemics are featured in an ostensibly non-partisan report, “Preventing a Disputed Presidential Election and Transition,” circulating widely among the Left as Election Day nears. The villain of this set piece of course is Donald Trump.

The report can be read simply as an occasionally hilarious guide to the Left’s id. After spending many pages trashing the president as a violent racist democracy-stealing criminal and worst-person-ever, TIP states that it “takes no position on how Americans should cast their votes.”

But the document also provides some interesting clues about how the Left would handle a close contest.

TIP said it engaged over 100 participants in a series of electoral war games: four “2020 election crisis scenarios.” The four scenarios: a race too tight to call on election night; a Biden popular vote and Electoral College win by a big margin; a Trump win in the Electoral College but a loss of the popular vote; and a Biden popular and electoral win by a narrow margin.

The results of all four exercises were “alarming,” the report says. President Trump is likely to “contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.”

Forget about the courts. Never mind that the legal system is the bulwark of our democratic process. TIP “intentionally did not game legal strategies in any detail,” the reports says. That’s telling.

The TIP conclusions are dire. “A close and contested election may be resolved through the exercise of power,” the report says. Trump might call for recounts; launch investigations into disputed results; halt mail-in ballots; “take to the streets;” and “rely on Fox News and right-wing social media” to “facilitate the harassment and bullying of election officials to cause chaos and delay.” Election officials might be intimidated “into taking actions that benefited Team Trump.” Republican-controlled state legislatures might be coerced into installing Trump-friendly Electoral College electors.

To counter these evil plans—of which by the way there is not a shred of evidence outside the blusters of a famously blustery president—Team Biden and its supporters should “take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance about elites observing norms are not the answer here.”

Biden-friendly congressional leaders should “seek advance assurances from the military and agency heads about plans and conduct,” the report says. “Military and law enforcement leaders need to be particularly attuned to the possibility that partisan actors will seek to manipulate or misuse their coercive powers for inappropriate political ends.” Civil servants “should be educated about their legal obligations to uphold the Constitution,” comrade. The media should start preparing their Trump-steals-the-election stories in advance. “Journalists and independent watchdogs can begin to cultivate sources and research stories now so they are positioned to sound the alarm.”

In summary—Trump bad, Biden good. Close election—stolen. Fight it in the streets, not in the courts. Military, media, law enforcement, civil servants—get on the right side, you have been warned.

The rest of us have been warned, too.

As always, we will be closely monitoring such antics as election day approaches.

Until next week …