While the left has taken Inspector General Horowitz’s report as some kind of vindication of the FBI and the FISA court, the IG himself begs to differ.

In a second day of testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hororwitz had some harsh words for both agencies regarding the mistakes his probe revealed that they had made.

During the hearing, IG Horowitz, rebuked the FBI for repeated “failures” during the initial phase of the Russia probe, as reveled by his extensive report on the investigation’s origins and the process used to obtain a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.

Horowitz’s report identified a total of 17 inaccuracies and omissions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications for Page, which included a doctored email and the failure to include exculpatory information about Page that may have impacted the court’s decision to grant the warrants.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was blunt in trying to get to the bottom of what happened during Wednesday’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.

“Were they just all incompetent?” he asked. Hawley then noted that due to the complexities involved, “it doesn’t sound like they’re very stupid to me.”

Hawley ultimately asked why the members of the FBI would commit such failures to mislead a court multiple times.

“That was precisely the concern we had,” Horowitz said. The inspector general made it clear, however, that he did not reach any conclusions regarding intent. But, he also did not necessarily accept the reasons people gave him during his investigation.

“There are so many errors, we couldn’t reach a conclusion or make a determination on what motivated those failures, [other than to] raise concerns about the explanations we got,” Horowitz said.

This echoed what Horowitz said in his opening statement, where he made clear that “although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or the missing information and the failures that occurred.”

Horowitz went on to testify that both Justice Department attorneys and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court “should have been given complete and accurate information,” adding, “that did not occur and as a result, the surveillance of Carter Page continued even as the FBI gathered evidence and information that weakened the assessment of probable cause and made the FISA applications less accurate.”

Accusations of Bias and Impropriety in the FISA Process

After Horowitz released his report, Democrats defending the initial Russia probe, pointed to the lack of a determination of “political bias” as a motivation to start the investigations of the Trump campaign.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., indicated that this would be a flawed assumption, questioning whether Horowitz’s inability to find evidence of bias really meant that there had not been any bias.

“Just because you didn’t find it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist,” Paul said, noting that there could have been 15 people involved whose bias influenced their decisions, but it just wasn’t provable.

“We could not prove it. We lay out here what we can,” Horowitz replied.

Former FBI Director James Comey, who led the bureau at the time, insisted he was unaware of any impropriety at the time, but told “Fox News Sunday” he “was wrong” when he defended the FBI’s FISA process in the past.

Still, he defended his former subordinates by claiming that no one committed any intentional misconduct, despite Horowitz calling for accountability and making referrals for further investigation.

At the same time, Comey admitted that there was “real sloppiness,” and that as director, he was ultimately responsible.

While the number on stage diminished, but talking points remained the same.  And if you think that you are getting debate weary – like going through Disney’s Small World tunnel over and over – you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The pace of debates will increase with another in January and THREE in February.  Whoever at the Democratic National Committee signed off on these debates should be looking for a new job.

For sure, the liberal media is always enthused – praising every event, while trying to never criticize any candidate.  They will heap lavish praise on their media colleague moderators for their banal softball questions. The December debate was no different – and that was the overarching problem.  There was nothing of substance to be learned.

In the aftermath, the folks at CNN and MSNBC could not say enough good things about everyone’s performance.  According to the propagandizing pundits, all the candidates did an outstanding job.

I would concur that they all came out relatively even, but not as winners.  Rather, they were united in demonstrating that none of them are what America needs. Even with fewer candidates on the stage they all seemed to appear individually smaller.  They were all losers.

The seven-candidate debate brought about a much different dynamic, however.  It was the day of the moderates.  Unlike the previous debates – where progressives outnumbered the so-called moderates of the Democratic Party —  this was a 5-to-1 advantage for the Biden wing of the Party.  Elizbeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were left to hold up the increasingly tattered flag of the radical left.

Suddenly progressives did not look like the future of the Democratic Party, but a philosophic albatross.  All that talk about everything for everybody got slapped down over and over.  When Warren was told that most economists say her multi-trillion-dollar plans are way too expensive, her feeble response was, “They’re wrong.”

The debate led off with virtually identical no-surprise mentally pre-recorded statements in support of President Trump’s impeachment.  Oh hum.

There were a few notable moments if you had not nodded off or switched over to the movie channel.  The fellow with the sharpest blade was the usually mild-mannered mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg.  He was attacked by the two ladies on the dais, Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Warren walked into a well-set trap when she blasted Buttigieg for being willing to take money from rich people and holding big-donor fundraisers in a fancy California wine cave.  Buttigieg snapped like a bear trap.  He said the Democrat candidate should not exclude any legal donations because the nominee will be facing the mega-million-dollar Trump campaign.

And then he went on the counterattack, noting that Warren is the very person – a multimillionaire – that she condemns.  Punch number one.  In a hard right to jaw, Buttigieg next noted that Warren had partially funded her campaign by transferring millions from her Senate account – money raised in the good old fashion soak-the-rich tradition. Punch two – and Warren is left staggering. Award the round to the small-town mayor.

Klobuchar played the experience card – diminishing Buttigieg by comparing her Washington experience to his as a small-town mayor.  Often derisively referring to him as “mayor.”  Buttigieg correctly noted that Washington experience is exactly what most voters do not want.  While Klobuchar said she did not mean to demean his experience, Buttigieg hit back with, “But you did.”  Mayor Pete may not have knocked Klobuchar to the canvas, but he showed he could take a punch and hit back.

Most of the post-debate pundits agreed that former Vice President Joe Biden was as good as he gets — not great, but at the top of HIS game.  His level of performance was unintentionally damned with faint praise when CNN’s Chris Cuomo suggested that at least Biden did not have any of those senior moments that characterized his past performances.

Biden did stumble once – in my judgment.  When asked if he would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of jobs to shut down the fossil fuel industry, he said he would.  With that answer, the former VP won himself a spot in innumerable Republican campaign commercials.

Now in all fairness, Biden said all those people would get even better jobs – union jobs.  No worker is going to believe that political sop.  Biden made it sound like you lose your job on Friday and start a better job on Monday.  No Joe.  It does not happen that way.

Promising unemployment for hundreds of thousands of highly unionized mining and drilling workers may even lose Biden a few points with some of the labor bosses.  That comment should have the head of the United Mine Workers heading to the White House for a photo-op.

Sanders was Sanders – reprising his role as the understudy for the Muppets’ grumpy old man.  We were again … and again … reminded that a few people at the top of the economic ladder have a lot more wealth than a lot of us down at the lower rungs.  His call for “revolution” in America is starting to sound like the wishful reminiscences of a retired general in a military home.

Businessman Tom Steyer reminded the audience that he was among the first to call for Trump’s impeachment – not long after the 2016 election.  I wrote a commentary at the time, that he was collecting names for a future presidential run.  Ironically, Steyer’s proud claim gives credence to the Republican charge that Democrats have been obsessed with impeachment from day one.

That leaves businessman Andrew Yang.  According to the clock watchers, he had the least talking time – and I cannot think of anything he said that was new or significant.  So, I guess he won the debate.

So, there ‘tis.

In the midst of this holiday season, I found myself channeling Clement Clarke Moore and his epic holiday poem.

‘Twas the week before Christmas when all through the House

Impeachment was stirring, with considerable joust;

The Articles were prepared by the chairmen unfair,

In the hopes that Pelosi, no vote would she spare.

The members assembled all smug at their desks;

While visions of Trump gave Democrats no rest.

The Speaker with gavel and Schiff at his post,

They addled our brains with their long-winded roast.

When off to the right there arose such a clatter,

I ran to the chamber to see what’s the matter.

Away to the gallery, I flew like a flash,

I tore open the doors with a loud sounding crash.

The lights of the chamber seem dim and so low,

Giving an ominous look to the people below.

When what to my wondering eyes did appear,

A miniature Nadler I saw from the rear.

He was speaking to another in such somber riff,

And I knew in a moment it was his friend shifty Schiff.

To your seats now assemble, I heard Pelosi proclaim.

She gaveled and shouted and called each by their name.

Now Omar! Now Clyburn! Now Dingell and Pascrell

Come Shalala! Come Lujan! Come Waters and Swalwell.

To the front of the chamber, to your seats in this hall.

Now vote away! Vote away! Vote away all.

To their seats in the chamber each member they flew,

With the hands full of papers, and those Articles, too.

And then in a twinkling, the call of the roll,

With the secretary of the House taking the toll.

As I drew in my head and kept gazing about.

Down came the gavel with Pelosi’s great clout.

She was dressed in all black, from her head to her foot,

As the scheme of her caucus had now taken root

With the pretense of solemnity, she stood at the podium

With confidence in the outcome, despite its odium

A bundle of votes, she drew from the floor

Of the number she needed, there were quite a few more.

Her eyes, how they squinted, her lips pursed so tight

You could tell that the Speaker was ready to fight.

When the votes were all counted and their deed was then done,

Madam Speaker had warned against any expression of fun.

With a wink of her eye and a frown on her head

She gave warning to her members – a warning they dread.

The Republicans stayed loyal to the positions they held,

But four Democrats protested by refusing to meld.

While shaking a finger at those who oppose,

She picked up the gavel and in her hand it arose.

Banging on the rostrum, she declared with great might,
That Impeachment is accomplished on this cold winter night.

So, there ‘tis.

When I was younger, I feared that I might die young.  One day I woke up and realized I had become too old to die young.  I, like several of the candidates for President of the United States, have slipped into what I call the “red zone” of life – that time when anything can happen at any time.

Since I am in the age range of several of the leading Democrat candidates, I have given serious thought to that issue.  It is almost a year until the next election.  Will the septuagenarian candidates make it to election day without a trip or two to the hospital?

I posed that question because I did a mental inventory of my friends who are in the same age group.  Almost every one of them has had a trip to the hospital or been diagnosed with a serious illness – not always life-threatening, but serious enough.  Many required surgery – including myself.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has already hit the emergency room with a mild heart attack.  Having had one or two of those in the past, I can attest to the fact that you can return to normal life for a while – but not the life one leads when they are 40, 50 or even 60.

The 95-year-old former President Jimmy Carter said it directly.  He declared that no person over the age of 80 can handle the job of President.  I think he is probably right – and two of the Democrat candidates – Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden – will enter the eighth decade of life during their potential first term in office.

Based on my own experience and general statistics, I see a very high possibility – maybe even a probability – that one or more of the older candidates will have a health scare before the election.  It could change the entire trajectory of the campaigns — depending on who it is and when it might occur.

If it happens when they are a candidate, it is mitigable.  If it happens after taking the oath of office, it can be a much more serious problem.

I know it is not politically correct to raise the issue of age, but as Biden often says – “come on, now. Get real”

So, there ‘tis.