theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

The SHABBY, SOPHOMORIC Behavior of Democrats at the SOTU

Patricia McCarthy

It is difficult to imagine a more galling demonstration of incivility than the Democrats in the room for Trump's SOTU speech. They scowled, frowned, and sat on their hands throughout the speech. They could hardly be bothered to acknowledge the heroes in the audience when they were introduced. While the Dems brought illegal immigrants, Trump invited actual paragons of American character and the families of victims of illegal immigrant crimes, as well as a victim of North Korea. It was embarrassing, like watching the anti-Semites in the UN stomp out of the room when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks. How is it any different? Our Democrats behave exactly like the most racist, intolerant people on the planet, and in their own Capitol.

The Democrats loathe the tax reform that has kick-started the American economy. They abhor the return of American manufacturing and the bonuses so many companies have doled out to their employees. It was not so long ago that Obama essentially swore that "those jobs are never coming back." "Crumbs," billionaire Pelosi called their bonuses. The left today hates our military. They hate the notion of national security. Like Obama, they cannot abide the unfair advantage, as they see it, of American might, American success, and American freedom which they are always trying to impede, to restrict, to regulate and tax. The left has been doing its best to turn the United States into Venezuela for two generations. Progressivism is socialism. Venezuela is how it ends.

How and why have the leftists among us become so anti-American, so contemptuous of the Constitution, the Founders, and American heroism? When did they get to be so rude? They hate Trump so much they have regressed to being playground bullies, a gang of horrid little toddlers. They seem to have one issue and one issue only, the prioritization of illegal immigrants. That's all they've got and for some reason they think it is a winning issue, that it will drive their base to take back the House and maybe even the Senate this year. They are so blinded by the light of their own self-regard they think that is a turnout cause for most Americans who are suffering under the onslaught of illegals in their communities. Congressman Tim Ryan, a Democrat from Ohio, kept an empty seat to honor a deported illegal from his district, a district in which many thousands have died from opioid overdose. Tucker Carlson asked him why he would want to make his defense of illegals a cause and not the deaths of so many Americans. He did not have a satisfactory answer. But this much is clear: the Democratic Party is today the party of illegal immigrants. That is their core constituency, that is who they represent over and above Americans.

It was truly shocking for all to see how disrespectful were the Democrats in attendance. Do they think their bad manners will endear them to the American people, most of whom have been taught basic manners and probably agree with nearly every word Trump spoke tonight? Do they think that refusing to stand for the heroes and victims Trump profiled will win over new voters? The parents of two African-American girls killed by MS-13 gang thugs were present and Trump recognized them. The Democrats would not even stand for them! The members of the Black Caucus in attendance did not even stand when Trump touted the "lowest black unemployment ever recorded." They cannot even celebrate good news for their own people who suffered terribly under Obama. These elected representatives lack the basics of common sense if they think this kind of scorn will win over voters.

High taxes, redistribution of wealth, open borders, the erasure of gender, the primacy of skin color, the dumbing-down of education across the board: these are the policies the Democrats promote. This is why they are desperate for illegal immigration, amnesty for millions, and chain migration. They cannot remain in power if they do not massively increase the dependent class they themselves created by design. It goes without saying that many of these immigrants are hardworking, fine people who are assets to our civil society, but many thousands of them are not. The criminal element among them is too much to bear. That is why legal immigration and immigration laws exist!

The fact that the Democrats in Congress loathe Trump more than they love their country or the American people is a tragedy. They have become a group of chattering nabobs who have nothing but disdain for the President and anyone who voted for him, those of us who wisely chose a political novice over a known criminal and liar. Given the many successes of Trump's first year (too many to list here) that would make Trump supporters the really smart people. It follows then that the Democrats are not only ill-mannered and out of touch with the constituents they represent, they are not very bright. Generally speaking, enmity and rancor do not win over voters. Optimism and success for all does. Love of country does. Trump loves the country and all of its people. That was the message of the night, loud and clear.


RACISM: The First and Final INSULT of LOSERS

President Trump may have lost the popular vote, but Republicans have been winning the popular vote at the state and local levels for years. 
(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Daniel Oliver

In the same fortnight that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate for black workers was the lowest in the 45 years that data has been collected, a great gaggle of congressmen called President Trump a racist for, among other things, the comment he made about Haiti and some African countries. Exactly what the president said is in doubt, but it’s also irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because previous presidents have done much worse things, yet are still revered by the liberal so-called intelligentsia. Lyndon Johnson used the “n” word more than a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, yet remains one of the stars in the liberal firmament. As does Franklin Roosevelt, who failed to press for an anti-lynching bill and who appointed an active member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. Liberal icon Woodrow Wilson, practically the inventor of progressivism, was an ardent racist, and long after such an attitude had ceased being “acceptable.” Yet today’s liberals revere those men, showing that their objection to Trump is just posturing.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said of Trump’s reported comments: “This is racism, plain and simple, and we need to call it that.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Trump could be a “racist” for calling several nations “shithole countries.”

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., tweeted: “America’s president is a racist and this is the proof.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called Trump a “racist bully” whose supporters are “white supremacists.”

The Democrats have a problem. They’ve been losing elections for years, at the local, state, and federal levels. Now with the obvious success of Trump’s economic program — deregulation and tax cuts — they are, truly, rebels without a cause. Not just a party without a cause, but rebels: rebels rebelling against what Americans, in large numbers, want. Yes, Trump may have lost the popular vote, but Republicans have been winning the popular vote at the state and local levels for years.

The only card in the Democrats’ deck is the identity politics card. They have relied on the black vote for decades. They extended that strategy by wooing other groups, whom they called “minorities,” likening them to blacks: homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, queer/questioning, and intersex — a whole bathhouse of sexual pathologies. But a bathhouse does not a majority make.

The squeamish — members of the snowflake generation and too many of their elders — may blanch at the description of the Democrats’ most loyal members as abnormal or perverse. According to the Gallup organization, the public estimates that 23 percent of Americans are homosexuals. Listening to Democrats, you’d think they think it’s 55 percent. The actual figure is 3.8 percent. For Democrats and others who may have graduated from public school, 3.8 percent may seem like a majority. Actually, it isn’t. It’s 47.2 points shy of a majority, “shy” being a charitable term here.

Meanwhile back in reality land, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said, “I love Trump because … he talks to Africans frankly.” The five poorest countries in Africa are Malawi, Burundi, Central African Republic, Gambia, and Niger (Uganda is only the 16th poorest). There may be some really bright and hardworking people in those countries; and that all of the people in those countries are God’s children no one should doubt.

But Walz, Hoyer, McGovern, and Warren should be asked the following: Have you ever been to Malawi, Burundi, Central African Republic, Gambia, or Niger? If not, why not? Where did you go on your last junket? London? Paris? Rome? Perhaps some other lily-white country. Are you currently a racist?

A new Harvard-Harris poll tells us that 81 percent of voters want to reduce legal immigration from its current level of more than 1 million immigrants per year, and 63 percent want it cut by at least half! About 85 percent of blacks think people should not be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. unless they bring skills or money.

That is why the Schumer shutdown of the federal government collapsed. That is why Trump won the election.

And that is why the president’s remarks will not be seen by most Americans as racist.

Daniel Oliver is chairman of the board of the Education and Research Institute, and a director of Citizens for the Republic, founded by Ronald Reagan in 1977. In addition to serving as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan, he was executive editor and subsequently Chairman of the Board of William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review.



'There are things that I cannot say that will 

shock the audience'

Actor Jim Caviezel portraying Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ."
Actor Jim Caviezel portraying Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ.”


Jim Caviezel, who stunned the world with his portrayal of Jesus in the 2004 blockbuster “The Passion of the Christ,” is now confirming he’s on board with director Mel Gibson for a sequel, and predicts it will be “the biggest film in history.”
“There are things that I cannot say that will shock the audience,” the 49-year-old actor told USA Today. “It’s great. Stay tuned.”
Both Gibson and Caviezel have not said much about the story focusing on the resurrection of Christ, but the star indicated he’s encouraged by the direction the project is taking.
“I won’t tell you how he’s going to go about it,” Caviezel said of Gibson. “But I’ll tell you this much, the film he’s going to do is going to be the biggest film in history. It’s that good.”
The original “Passion of the Christ” followed the last 12 hours of Christ’s life. The movie brought in more than $611 million worldwide on a $30 million budget, and remains the highest-grossing R-rated film ever in North America with $370.8 million.
In 2016, Gibson spoke with USA Today about his plans for the sequel.
“The Resurrection. Big subject.” Gibson said. “We’re trying to craft this in a way that’s cinematically compelling and enlightening so that it shines new light, if possible, without creating some weird thing.”
Earlier this month in Chicago, Caviezel warned against false Christianity, and urged believers to publicly voice their faith in “this pagan world.”
“I want you to go out into this pagan world, I want you to have the courage to step into this pagan world and shamelessly express your faith in public. The world needs proud warriors animated by their faith,” he told the Fellowship of Catholic University Students SLS Leadership Conference.
“Warriors like Saint Paul and Saint Luke who risked their names, their reputations to take their faith, their love for Jesus into the world.
“God is calling each one of us, each one of you to do great things but how often we fail to respond, dismissing it as some mental blurp. It’s time for our generation, now, to accept that call, the call of God urging all of us to give ourselves entirely to Him.”
“Set yourselves apart from this corrupt generation,” the actor continued. “Be saints. You weren’t made to fit in. You were born to stand out.”
“We must shake off this indifference, this destructive tolerance of evil. But only our faith and the wisdom of Christ can save us,” he said. “But it requires warriors, ready to risk their reputations, their names, even our very lives, to stand for the truth.”
“By God, we must live,” Caviezel concluded, “and with the Holy Spirit as your shield and Christ as your sword, may you join St. Michael and all the angels in sending Lucifer and his henchmen straight right back to hell where they belong!”

Why Was Judge RECUSED From Mueller/Flynn Case?

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, has not been ruled out for a pardon from President Trump. (Associated Press/File)

Larry O'Connor

In early December 2017, Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused from the criminal case involving Gen. Michael Flynnwho had pleaded guilty in an arrangement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller
The statement from the US District Court was direct and did not offer any explanation: 
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.
According to a court filing, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a Dec. 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.
Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, and added that the case was randomly reassigned.
The use of the term “was recused” is noteworthy as the court spokesperson purposely did not use the terminology “recused himself” with regard to Contreras removal from the case. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable and the “was recused” phrasing suggests that Contreras was told to recuse himself rather than the judge voluntarily stepping away from the case based on his own concern for a conflict of interest. 
According to Joe DiGenova, a former US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Contreras was, in fact, removed from the case. DiGenova revealed the claim during an interview earlier this month on WMAL radio in Washington DC: 
“I learned over the weekend that he (Contreras) did not recuse himself. He was removed from the case. Now the question for any good reporter at the Washington Post - the alternative universe in DC - is ‘why was Judge Contreras removed from the case by either the Chief Judge or the DC Circuit?’  Have you seen a story written about that? Isn’t it interesting how people in the press are not interested why the one judge who has taken a guilty plea in this case was removed from the case?”
The timing of the recusal is curious, to say the least, especially in light of some of the tidbits that have slipped out recently over the contents of the FISA memo compiled by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.  
Contreras sits on the FISA court. He was assigned to that court in May 2016, months before the FISA warrant was granted to the FBI to spy on members of the Trump campaign and the Trump transition.
It is believed that this surveillance contributed to the evidence that compelled Flynn to enter a plea for making misleading statements to federal investigators. Contreras accepted that plea as the presiding judge of the Mueller/Flynn case on December 2nd. Five days later, Contreras was recused from the case in which he had just accepted a plea. 
What changed between December 2nd and December 7th? How could a conflict arise in those five days that had not existed prior to the plea deal? 
Was Contreras the presiding judge who granted the FISA warrant that led to the Flynn plea? Was he the judge who accepted the Russian dossier (created by Christopher Steele while in the employ of the Clinton campaign) as objective and credible evidence justifying a FISA surveillance against Flynn and others in Trumpland during a hotly contested presidential campaign?
If so, does this taint the evidence and the circumstances that led Flynn to accept a guilty plea while being squeezed by Special Counsel Mueller’s team?
The court isn’t saying. They announced the recusal with no further statement or explanation. But now that we know what we know regarding the dossier and the FISA warrant, these questions deserve an answer. 
You’d think some journalists in this town might want the answer too. 

Frank Luntz, Former Trump HATER: ‘I Owe Donald Trump an APOLOGY’

Republican pollster Frank Luntz. (Associated Press) ** FILE **
Republican pollster Frank Luntz. (Associated Press) ** FILE **

Cheryl K. Chumley

Pollster Frank Luntz isn’t exactly known around political town as a fawning admirer of President Donald Trump. In fact, the two engaged in a somewhat nasty public spat in 2015, with the latter accusing the former of using his polling position to “shake him down” and derail his presidential aspirations.
But now, post-State of the Union, 2018? It’s a smiley new world.
From Luntz, on Twitter: “Tonight, I owe Donald Trump an apology. Tonight, I was moved and inspired. Tonight, I have hope and faith in America again. It may go away tomorrow. But tonight, America is great again. #SOTU.”
The fawning didn’t stop there.
“Even in foreign policy and national security,” Luntz wrote in a separate tweet, “this speech [is] a perfect blend of strength and empathy. These heroic stories break our hearts, but sturdy our resolve. This is the Trump his voters wanted him to be. #SOTU.”
And this: ‘This speech represents the presidential performance that Trump observers have been waiting for — brilliant mix of numbers and stories, humility and aggressiveness, traditional conservatism and political populism. Only one word qualifies: Wow. #SOTU,” he tweeted.
And this, yet another tweet: “I have criticized the President’s language a lot in recent months. But tonight is Donald Trump at his very best. He’s personalized his language and policies better than I’ve ever seen. #SOTU.”
On Luntz acknowledging his past criticisms of Trump — he ain’t a’kiddin’.
In August of 2015, on the heels of a focus group conducted by Luntz that completely trashed Trump, the then-millionaire businessman took to national media to talk his own trash and accuse the pollster of taking revenge for failing to hire him in the past.
“I watch this guy do a really negative report on me,” Trump said then, Business Insider reported. “And the only reason he did it, in my opinion, is because I didn’t want to hire him commercially. I think it’s disgusting.”
Luntz responded with a denial — and then this: “[Trump] launches an attack on everyone who is even remotely critical.”
Politico in that same month ran a story with this headline: “Fox’s Luntz Blasted Trump at Koch Seminar.”
And it opened this way: “Donald Trump’s feud with GOP pollster Frank Luntz escalated Monday — with Trump calling on Fox News to fire Luntz from overseeing its post-debate focus groups, and Luntz launching a profanity-laden tirade to describe the real estate showman turned renegade presidential candidate. In an interview with POLITICO, Luntzsaid Trump … [was] ‘delivering a big f— you’ to the elites in America. … ‘But f— you doesn’t solve anything. F— you doesn’t make life any better. F— you makes you feel good, but it doesn’t get you where you need to go.’”
It’s all unicorns and daisies on Luntz’s Twitter feed.
“This speech,” he wrote, of Trump’s State of the Union, “is going to have a measurable impact on Trump’s favorability and popularity. … Whoever told @TheDemocrats to sit on their hands made a huge mistake.”
It takes a big man to publicly admit he was wrong.

But the bigger takeaway from Luntz’s Twitter feed is this: Get ready for 2018 elections. Republican domination would seem only one solid Trump speech away.

Trump’s State of the Union Delivered More DRAMA, PASSION, PATRIOTISM Than His Hollywood Critics Have All Year

Image result for Trump’s State of the Union delivered more drama, passion, patriotism than his Hollywood critics have all year

Liz Peek

Hollywood, eat your hearts out. President Trump’s first-ever State of the Union Address delivered more drama, passion and feel-good patriotism than his critics in Tinseltown delivered all year. My guess – his ratings will top the Oscars and the Grammys, combined.
Pundits expected to hear from a kinder, gentler President Trump who would reach across the aisle to enlist the aid of Democrats in pursuing his agenda. While the tone of the president’s address was surely more positive and upbeat than his dark and combative inaugural address, he did not stoop to conquer.
He asked for Congress to come together, to serve the people of the nation, but on his terms.
He did not attempt to topple the Resistance by backing away from his campaign promises; instead, he reaffirmed his dedication to border security, to a strong military, to religious freedom, to protecting the second amendment and to upholding our veterans and our law enforcement, seemingly challenging Democrats to deny the reasonableness and popularity of these bedrock commitments.
The sour faces of his critics suggested this: they fear his success.
Pundits expected to hear from a kinder, gentler Trump who would reach across the aisle to enlist the aid of Democrats in pursuing his agenda. While the tone of the president’s address was surely more positive and upbeat than his dark and combative inaugural address, he did not stoop to conquer.
As Trump reviewed his administration’s accomplishments of the past year, Americans listening in might applaud the tax cuts that will save families thousands of dollars. They might welcome the bonuses and raises being handed out by corporations because of the GOP tax bill, and cheer the new investments by Apple and others encouraged by the tax reforms. They might rejoice that – finally – wages have started to rise.
Trump proudly ticked off data points on the strong economy, including unemployment among African-Americans falling to the lowest level ever recorded. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus failed to stand and applaud; how foolish does that look? 
Trump celebrated the buoyant economy, saying, “There has never been a better time to live the American dream,” and promising the country that “You can be anything” and that “Together we can achieve anything.” But while he stressed that the nation should move forward together, since we “share the same home, the same heart, the same destiny and the same flag,” he was clear that he wanted Americans to join him on the path he has laid out.
Emphasizing that the government serves the people, and not the other way around, he touted moves to make agencies more responsive to the needs of our citizens. He said he would ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire government employees, and noted that because of the VA Accountability Act that he signed into law, his administration had been able to remove 1,500 employees who “failed to give vets the care they deserve.” He did not pledge to drain the swamp, but you could just tell he wanted to.
He celebrated his numerous efforts to protect and help American workers. Trump tiptoed past the graveyard of climate change, saying he had “ended the war on American energy and the war on beautiful clean coal.” He touted the revving up of car manufacturing in the U.S., and also the accelerated approval of drugs flowing from the FDA.
He claimed to have turned the page on “unfair trade deals,” reiterating that future pacts must be fair and reciprocal and that his government will work to protect workers as well as our intellectual property.
He asked Democrats to partner with his administration in delivering an infrastructure program, asking Congress to create a bill designed to unlock $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investment, leveraging federal funds with money from state governments and private funding. In particular, he demanded that the permitting process be streamlined. Getting the required permissions to build a “simple road” can take up to ten years; he wants that cut down to two.
And then there was immigration. The president has already proposed a four-part compromise on immigration reform, and in particular on resolving the fate of the Dreamers. He offered no new concessions, and instead took a hard stand on the security aspect of immigration policy. He personalized   the real threat from gang members in the country illegally by introducing two Long Island families grieving for their daughters who were murdered by members of MS-13. Cory Booker looked like he was sucking on a prune.
The president also reviewed his America First foreign policy, and suggested he would ask Congress to ensure that our foreign aid will be increasingly handed out only to America’s friends. He celebrated the success in taking back nearly all the lands so recently held by ISIS, and vowed to continue the fight, declaring that terrorists will be treated as enemy combatants, and not criminals. Lest anyone misunderstand that distinction, he vowed to keep Guantanamo open.
And he talked about the dangers of North Korea, recounting the horrible imprisonment and death of Otto Wambier, a college student who was released to his family shortly before he died, presumably succumbing to months of torture and hardship at the hands of Kim Jong Un. Wambier’s parents made a tearful salute to the assembled crowd.
President Trump’s speech will likely not have won over any Democrats, only 11 percent of whom approve of him, according to the latest Fox News poll. But he may have shored up his support amongst independents, some of whom have moved away from him in recent months. His strong, clear-eyed message of American empowerment appeals. It is hard to deny that our government should put our people first. It is tough to argue that the bureaucracy functions as well as it should, or that security should not be the uppermost concern of our leaders.
Most important, Trump has a good story to tell. A story of accomplishment, of lower taxes, better jobs and higher wages. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke earlier in the day, attempting to deny Mr. Trump credit for the improving economy and instead arguing that President Obama was responsible for the brightening picture.
Sorry Charlie; the experts say this is Trump’s economy, and come the fall voters may well agree. 

Trump Just Took ‘Telling Americans’ STORIES’ to a Whole New Level

                   President Trump EPA

John Podhoretz

The true inspiration for Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech was not Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln. It was Paul Harvey.
His five-minute daily show, “The Rest of the Story,” featured beautifully told tales of individual Americans and the challenges they overcame from a populist right-wing perspective.
Forget the immigration talk and the border talk and the prescription drugs and whatever he said about America’s global challenges.
Trump’s policy is largely improvisational anyway, and there’s nothing he promised or vowed or cited as something America desperately needs that he couldn’t take back tomorrow.
The only thing anyone is going to remember about this speech are the stories he told about the people his administration invited to sit in the Capitol gallery.
Presidents have been using ordinary Americans as tools and props and symbolic representatives of the goodness of the country for more than 30 years.
Trump took it to a new level last night — to a Paul Harvey level.
Those who loathe Trump and those who love him are stirred by the same ad hominem, slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners style of his Tweeting and his rally speeches — and by the stories of his backstairs-at-the-White-House rages.
So his emergence as a sentimental, feel-good, sob-sister toastmaster was entirely unexpected and all the more effective for it.
Who was not rendered misty-eyed by the story of Ryan Holets, the 27-year-old Albuquerque cop who came across an addicted pregnant woman and later adopted her baby because he heard God calling to him to do so — after which he and his wife named the baby Hope?
Who did not feel sorrow when hearing of and seeing the families of two teenage girls killed by MS-13 gang members — and the family of Otto Warmbier, the college student who was effectively tortured to death by the North Korean regime?
It might seem exploitative to use their grief to advance policy prescriptions, but all three families chose of their own free will to attend the speech so that their loved ones could be remembered.
On and on Trump went, introducing ordinary American after ordinary American and citing the country’s strength and nobility and purpose — and the memory of his bizarre inaugural address about an America awash in carnage seemed to have been delivered by an entirely different person.
(And it was — that speech was the handiwork of Steve Bannon, who is probably sleeping in the doorway of your nearby shuttered storefront right now.)
So maybe this is what Trump should do. He was a TV star. Maybe he needs an actual TV show.
Or, to bring this forward into 2018, a presidential podcast on the model of “The Rest of the Story,” in which he literally does what he did Tuesday night in the State of the Union.
Tell us all feel-good stories about Americans striving to do good, or who want to make a better life for themselves, or who are working to ensure that a loved one struck down unjustly did not die in vain.
I’m serious about this. He has all that time on his schedule that’s unscheduled, why couldn’t he spend five minutes on this?
He has spent so much of the first year of his presidency indulging his angers and going for the jugular, it would do him and the rest of us a bit of good if he devoted a few minutes a day to something, you know, nice?
That stuff was a hit. And you know what you’re supposed to do with a hit in show business?
Give them more of what they want.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

FBI Officials REVIEW MEMO, Could Not Cite 'Any FACTUAL Inaccuracies'


FBI officials review damning surveillance memo, cannot cite any ‘inaccuracies’

Catherine Herridge

The FBI offered no comment to Fox News regarding bureau officials’ review of the document. Senior DOJ officials told Fox News after this story first posted, however, that they “dispute the characterization” that no inaccuracies could be cited.

Senior DOJ officials also had the opportunity to review the memo at DOJ headquarters on Monday.

The Justice Department, in a Jan. 24 letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd, originally had called the Republican staff memo’s release “unprecedented” and “reckless.” Boyd also stated, “Though we are currently unaware of any wrongdoing relating to the FISA process, we agree that any abuse of that system cannot be tolerated.”

But DOJ officials told Fox News on Tuesday that parts of that memo are now "moot" -- specifically the term "reckless," as DOJ and FBI officials have now had the opportunity to review the document.

Fox News is told the memo was “drafted deliberately to eliminate national security information” that could be damaging if viewed by individuals outside Congress. 


Rep. Gowdy: FISA memo will be embarrassing to Rep. Schiff

House Republicans have indicated the memo speaks to whether the unverified anti-Trump dossier was used to secure or extend surveillance warrants for Americans, including a Trump associate.

“If you’re interested whether or not the dossier was used in court proceedings, whether or not it was funded by political opponents, you’ll want to see the memo,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said on “Fox & Friends.”

The source said the FBI and Justice Department had “fought tooth and nail” for close to a year to avoid providing the surveillance-related records to Congress. The source said additional records provided this month, after Republican committee Chairman Devin Nunes threatened to move forward with contempt of Congress citations, backed up investigators’ earlier findings.

The committee is in the process of lining up the remaining FBI and DOJ interviews, which are expected in early February, as part of its investigation. Intelligence committee Republicans have two outstanding records requests: for additional texts between FBI official Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and records documenting an April 2017 meeting between DOJ lawyer and senior special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann and a major media organization. The Weissmann deadline was Jan. 11.

In a Jan. 4 letter, documenting his agreement with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to avoid contempt citations, Nunes wrote, “I understand that your office is researching records related to the details of an April 2017 meeting between DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissmann (now the senior attorney for Special Counsel Robert Mueller) and the media which will be provided to this Committee by close of business Thursday January 11, 2018.”

The source said the FBI and Justice Department said they wanted additional time to gather all of the Weissmann records, to provide them at once. Fox News understands the committee will make a new push for the remaining Weissmann records, which are related to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as early as this week.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan recently told Fox News, “I am interested in anything the FBI did to leak information to further their narrative.”

Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.