After that IG report, what now, Chief Justice Roberts?

Perhaps one of the biggest "oh, no" moments in American history has been identified in the Horowitz Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General report

We further determined that FBI officials at every level concurred with this judgment, from the OGC attorneys assigned to the investigation to senior CD officials, then General Counsel James Baker, then Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and then Director James Corney. FBI leadership supported relying on Steele's reporting to seek a FISA order on Page after being advised of, and giving consideration to, concerns expressed by Stuart Evans, then NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight responsibility over OI, that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the DNC, and that the foreign intelligence to be collected through the FISA order would probably not be worth the "risk" of being criticized later for collecting communications of someone (Carter Page) who was "politically sensitive."  (to be fair in 20/20 hindsight how about Carter Page  simply being an innocent American-but at least Stuart Evans tried to warn all).

Since FBI officials James Baker, Andrew McCabe, and James Comey are, in my judgment, seditious conspirators, the identification of their roles, by name, is significant.  They committed abuses, and there were even people who tried to stop them.

Deputy assistant attorney general Stuart Evans, for example, showed insight, courage, and judgment by calling the trouble out.  In so doing, he also took took on the vicious and corrupt Clinton Inc. ongoing criminal enterprise through his role trying to stop the abuses in the I.G. report.  That's because it was believed by all in the period of time mentioned in the I.G. report that Hillary Clinton would be our next president.  Clinton was our own Madame Defarge.  And woe to anyone who had the courage to cross this character from Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities.

Possessing a remorseless bloodlust, Madame Defarge embodies the chaos of the French Revolution. The initial chapters of the novel find her sitting quietly and knitting in the wine shop. However, her apparent passivity belies her relentless thirst for vengeance. With her stitches, she secretly knits a register of the names of the revolution's intended victims. As the revolution breaks into full force, Madame Defarge reveals her true viciousness. 

That's who she was, yet someone tried to stop her.

However, the DOJ I.G. report is only a static data point in time.  The "legs" of future dynamic legal action actually rest with three people: Attorney General William Barr, U.S. attorney John Durham, and yet to be heard from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Both Attorney General Barr and Mr. Durham have legally and with good purpose said it's not over until it's over.  Here's Durham:

In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.  The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.  While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General's report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.

Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.

But the third most senior person involved in oversight, Chief Justice John Roberts, has yet to be heard from.  Remember that by the enabling of legislation, the Chief Justice alone owns the FISA process when it crosses over from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.

The Horowitz I.G. report, even with all the attempts from the fake news to spin it, did not ignore the truth of the matter: that a huge fraud was perpetuated on the chief justice's own court.  If such fraud goes unchecked in the process of allowing sanctified violations of  our Fourth Amendment rights, then the foundation of the entire FISA process is suspect.  The only person in America who can now speak out to foster confidence in the FISA court is the chief justice.

The Court entertains applications made by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, what are you going to do with 18 USC 1001(a)?  It states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both[.]

Before Chief Justice Roberts presides over a Senate impeachment trial, Americans are owed an explanation on what he has and will continue do to stop these most egregious violations of constitutional safeguards.

Perhaps one of the biggest "oh, no" moments in American history has been identified in the Horowitz Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General report

We further determined that FBI officials at every level concurred with this judgment, from the OGC attorneys assigned to the investigation to senior CD officials, then General Counsel James Baker, then Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and then Director James Corney. FBI leadership supported relying on Steele's reporting to seek a FISA order on Page after being advised of, and giving consideration to, concerns expressed by Stuart Evans, then NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight responsibility over OI, that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the DNC, and that the foreign intelligence to be collected through the FISA order would probably not be worth the "risk" of being criticized later for collecting communications of someone (Carter Page) who was "politically sensitive."  (to be fair in 20/20 hindsight how about Carter Page  simply being an innocent American-but at least Stuart Evans tried to warn all).

Since FBI officials James Baker, Andrew McCabe, and James Comey are, in my judgment, seditious conspirators, the identification of their roles, by name, is significant.  They committed abuses, and there were even people who tried to stop them.

Deputy assistant attorney general Stuart Evans, for example, showed insight, courage, and judgment by calling the trouble out.  In so doing, he also took took on the vicious and corrupt Clinton Inc. ongoing criminal enterprise through his role trying to stop the abuses in the I.G. report.  That's because it was believed by all in the period of time mentioned in the I.G. report that Hillary Clinton would be our next president.  Clinton was our own Madame Defarge.  And woe to anyone who had the courage to cross this character from Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities.

Possessing a remorseless bloodlust, Madame Defarge embodies the chaos of the French Revolution. The initial chapters of the novel find her sitting quietly and knitting in the wine shop. However, her apparent passivity belies her relentless thirst for vengeance. With her stitches, she secretly knits a register of the names of the revolution's intended victims. As the revolution breaks into full force, Madame Defarge reveals her true viciousness. 

That's who she was, yet someone tried to stop her.

However, the DOJ I.G. report is only a static data point in time.  The "legs" of future dynamic legal action actually rest with three people: Attorney General William Barr, U.S. attorney John Durham, and yet to be heard from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Both Attorney General Barr and Mr. Durham have legally and with good purpose said it's not over until it's over.  Here's Durham:

In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.  The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.  While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General's report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.

Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report's conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.

But the third most senior person involved in oversight, Chief Justice John Roberts, has yet to be heard from.  Remember that by the enabling of legislation, the Chief Justice alone owns the FISA process when it crosses over from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.

The Horowitz I.G. report, even with all the attempts from the fake news to spin it, did not ignore the truth of the matter: that a huge fraud was perpetuated on the chief justice's own court.  If such fraud goes unchecked in the process of allowing sanctified violations of  our Fourth Amendment rights, then the foundation of the entire FISA process is suspect.  The only person in America who can now speak out to foster confidence in the FISA court is the chief justice.

The Court entertains applications made by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.

So, Mr. Chief Justice, what are you going to do with 18 USC 1001(a)?  It states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both[.]

Before Chief Justice Roberts presides over a Senate impeachment trial, Americans are owed an explanation on what he has and will continue do to stop these most egregious violations of constitutional safeguards.