Either unfortunately or thankfully the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots seem to forget that something called the “internet” exists.
Despite their best intentions and the focus of Google and other fact-eliminating social media Mega-Censors, some videos and facts have managed to escape complete and utter digital liquidation.
You see, it would appear that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry “The Hutt” Nadler has called for and acquired committee contempt orders for Attorney General William Barr despite those orders being illegal and, well, in direct contravention of what he precisely wanted in a prior situation involving a Demorat.
Let’s check our internet on this for comparison, shall we? Because, as we shall hear, “flip-flopping for abject political line purposes, thy name is Nadler.”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, thankfully the genius named Hank Johnson weighed in and revealed the true intentions of the Demorats, Leftists and American Media Maggots. By the way, what the hell happened to Johnson’s lower jaw? Bad gauze? A serious Band-Aid accident? Shaving?
Just asking: did Hank Johnson happen to pass a few years ago, and was subsequently replaced by a Disney Audioanimatronics robot that still somehow can’t pronounce the English ranguage or, minimally, the word “obfuscation”?
Let’s not forget that this is the same Hank Johnson who called President Trump a white supremacist, a Nazi, and compared him to Hitler.
And let us not forget that this is the same Hank Johnson who — thank God — forewarned us about the island nation of Guam because he was sniffing paint out of a paper bag that day.
And who could forget this wonderful HJ video (H/T to Rick!) about helium:
So please, let’s attempt to acquire a semblance of a perspective. It is the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots who couldn’t care less about
Facts
Logic
Rationality
Prorportion
Common sense
Context, or
History
Until it uplifts and furthers their own narrative. Period.
I’ll wager there are any number of persons in DC, Brandywine, Alexandria, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Falls Church, Reston, Rockville, College Park, Great Falls, McLean, Chevy Chase, North Arlington and Georgetown — amongst many, many other locales –whose personal radar has emerged and is sounding bells and klaxons in a fashion heretofore never experienced.
I can hear them. And I think they can too: footsteps.
Furthermore, the smell of fear — sweaty, clammy, dripping rivulets of fear coursing down the small of a back, staining the armpits, moistening the crotch, invading the breath, gathering on a forehead — is becoming endemic in the northeast. It’s a sour smell, cloying, inescapable, permeating the offices of many bureaucrats in DC, male and female. It’s the abject smell of fear. And it’s also the smell of emptying bowels and a mad rush to cover up and bury evidence.
Who knows? Who knows what? And who could potentially or will likely “roll” on others in order to save themselves? Who will cut a deal? More importantly: who will cut a deal first?
Yes, it’s the “beginning of the end.” But for whom?
— ????????????????????™️ (@RealMAGASteve) April 19, 2019
Attorney General William Barr is now the most dangerous man in the United States of America.
Listen to how they must denigrate him. Listen to how they must minimize him. Listen to how they must utilize every device, word, phrase, pejorative, in order to derail his future work and to absolutely destroy his credibility and destroy him as a human being.
Because here is what an actual Attorney General of the United States sounds like:
“I’m not going to discuss my decision, I will lay it out after the report is out.”
“I’m not going to characterize or discuss the contents of the report.”
This is Demorat Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland trying to get information out of AG Barr prior to the release of the report a few weeks ago. This is called sticking to your guns.
The Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots clearly recognize that AG William Barr is a DC veteran and doesn’t buy very many political narratives. He’s seen most everything and seems to be afraid of little. He appears to be primarily interested in the law, and said this three weeks ago:
And there is more that he said in the Senate Judiciary Committee:
This was sufficient to raise Demorat hackles and cause immediate concern, as in “Is this guy not going to play along?”
Three weeks ago, AG Barr caused sphincters all across DC to either slam shut or empty their watery contents when he related the following:
“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal.”
“I think spying did occur.”
The words that loosened thousands of sets of bowels in the northeast.
And with that, the gloves were off. William Barr had to be destroyed by any means necessary or available. It was clear that he was no limp-wristed, wimpy-voiced, diaper-wearing Jeff Sessions — but an actual adult who could think for himself and recognized his duties and responsibilities as Attorney General of the United States.
He also knows what he will and will not do. And what is lawfully obligated to do or not do. AG William Barr is essentially setting behavior parameters for the children.
A single word: “No.” Then: “Why should you have them?”
Hence these unfettered, unreasonable and baseless attacks. Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots know precisely what William Barr will do or is already doing. He is going to walk backwards in time to determine how the FISA warrant was acquired,
Lindsay Graham nails the primary issue here on the Sean Hannity Show. As an aside, it’s interesting how it’s the third time I’ve had to find this video you YouTube, their having shut down and eliminated two other prior videos.
What was so terrible about this video according to YouTube?
A truth too close to the bone?
Perhaps the LDAMM — Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots think that, instead of “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” they believe Attorney General William Barr said “cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!”
Because: make no mistake, this is war. Leftists and Demorats are fighting to ensure that the entire 44th presidency doesn’t explode into the face of Barack Hussein Obama and, moreover, that those persons operating the pedals and levers — such as Hillary Clinton, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohn, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and many, many others — aren’t themselves placed under indictment, arrest and perhaps even sentencing in a federal facility.
Because I firmly believe now as two years ago when I made this statement, that what we are seeing is a soft coup — simply not an active utilization of the US military might — against a citizen of the United States. It was a soft coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect, and then a sitting President of the United States.
The heat is on. The persons I enumerated are hearing footsteps and the stench of fear is thick. Here are a number of revelations recently discovered involving the FBI, CIA and many other individuals in the systemic focus on removing Donald Trump by any means necessary, legal or illegal.
NSA recommends dropping controversial mass surveillance program, report says
by Christopher Carbone
The National Security Agency has reportedly recommended that the White House abandon a controversial surveillance program that collects vast amounts of information about Americans’ phone calls and text messages, claiming the legal and logistical burdens of maintaining it outweigh its benefits to the intelligence community.
The recommendation, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal and involved input from NSA, the FBI and the Department of Justice, appears to represent an about-face regarding a program – long criticized by privacy advocates – that federal officials previously said was vital to finding and disrupting terrorist plots against the United States.
The once-secret program known as Stellarwind, which was revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and has been seen as not viable for some time now, is now seen as something that provides limited intelligence to the U.S., according to the Journal.
U.S. Intelligence Institutionally Politicized Toward Democrats
Former CIA analyst says agencies dominated by liberals
by Bill Gertz
The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have become bastions of political liberals and the pro-Democratic Party views of intelligence personnel have increased under President Donald Trump, according to a journal article by a former CIA analyst.
John Gentry, who spent 12 years as a CIA analyst, criticized former senior intelligence leaders, including CIA Director John Brenan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, along with former analyst Paul Pillar, for breaking decades-long prohibitions of publicly airing their liberal political views in attacking Trump.
The institutional bias outlined in a lengthy article in the quarterly International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence risks undermining the role of intelligence in support of government leaders charged with making policy decisions.
Gentry stopped short of saying the widespread liberal bias of intelligence officials has influenced intelligence reports and products. However, he concludes that “bias may have crept into CIA analyses.”
Facts in evidence. Didn’t we all already inherently intuit this?
But wait; wasn’t it the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots — to include Jimmy “The Leak” Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper — who absolutely insisted that the alphabet agencies were entirely apolitical and unbiased?
Since April of 2016, Obama’s campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.
Former president Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show.
The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. Though many of the claims in the dossier have been directly refuted, none of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been independently verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings last April that his work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.
FBI found Hillary Clinton’s emails in Obama White House, former top official says
by Daniel Chaitin, 4-23-19
A former top FBI official said a repository of Hillary Clinton’s emails was obtained by the Obama White House.
As part of a court-ordered discovery related to Clinton’s unauthorized email server, Bill Priestap was asked by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Clinton, her State Department staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained” by the FBI.
He divulged a nonexhaustive list, which included the Executive Office of the President.
Stop. Do you doubt for even a microsecond that Barack Obama had no idea what was being done to Trump and his campaign by a host of persons and the alphabet agencies? Can you really believe Obama was and is that ignorant of politics?
Other people mentioned were former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, Jacob Sullivan, and Justin Cooper, former Clinton information technology staffer Bryan Pagliano, the State Department, Secret Service, and Washington-based law firm Williams and Connolly.
Priestep answered questions in writing and under oath as part of U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth’s ruling earlier this year that discovery could commence examining the former secretary of state’s use of the server, encompassing Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap.
Even more important:
Judicial Watch shared Priestep’s recent testimony on Tuesday, at a time when Republican allies of President Trump, as well as the Justice Department and its inspector general, are looking into possible misconduct by top DOJ and FBI officials stemming back to the Obama administration to undermine Trump as a candidate and president.
“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated — Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”
DOJ inspector general ‘homing in on’ FBI’s use of unverified Steele dossier
by Jerry Dunleavy, 5-8-19
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating the FBI’s reliance on the unverified dossier produced by British ex-spy Christopher Steele in the surveillance of a Trump campaign associate “despite questions about [Steele’s] credibility.”
Citing unnamed sources, the Wall Street Journal reports Horowitz “is homing in on” and “has been asking witnesses about” the FBI’s “treatment of information” provided by Steele, described as a “key source”, who was used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
This is part of Horowitz’s broad investigation into alleged FISA abuse and more.
Drops of sweat. Footsteps. More underarm deodorant required.
Steele’s dossier was funded in part by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign through the Perkins Coie law firm and opposition research group Fusion GPS, which had reached out to and contracted Steele.
The new Wall Street Journal report says the inspector general’s office “has been asking why the FBI continued to cite Steele as a credible source in the renewal applications.” And a specific focus of Horowitz’s team is apparently “a news report cited extensively in the [FISA] applications that appeared to bolster Steele’s credibility… [which] said U.S. intelligence officials were investigating allegations similar to those Steele had raised.”
James Comey’s planet is getting noticeably warmer. Attorney General William Barr’s emissions are the suspected cause.
Barr has made plain that he intends to examine carefully how and why Comey, as FBI director, decided that the bureau should investigate two presidential campaigns and if, in so doing, any rules or laws were broken.
In light of this, the fired former FBI director apparently has decided that photos of him on Twitter standing amid tall trees and in the middle of empty country roads, acting all metaphysical, is no longer a sufficient strategy.
No, Comey has realized, probably too late, that he has to try to counter, more directly, the narrative being set by the unsparing attorney general whose words in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week landed in the Trump-opposition world like holy water on Linda Blair. Shrieking heads haven’t stopped spinning since.
And so we’ve seen Comey get real busy lately. First he penned a curious op-ed in The New York Times. Then a Times reporter, with whom Comey has cooperated in the past, wrote a news article exposing an early, controversial investigative technique against the Trump campaign in an attempt to get out front and excuse it. Next, Comey is scheduled to be encouraged on a friendly cable news “town hall.”
In the op-ed, Comey trotted out his now-familiar St. James schtick, freely pronouncing on the morality of others. He sees himself as a kind of Pontiff-of-the-Potomac working his beads, but comes across more like an unraveling Captain Queeg working his ball bearings.
Jimmy “The Leak” hears footsteps. James Clapper hears footsteps, from TheFederalist.com:
President Obama’s top intelligence official stated categorically that no evidence existed of Trump-Russia collusion. So why did Rosenstein appoint Mueller two months later?
Long before the special counsel probe ended in confirming there was no collusion between President Trump and Russia, the U.S. government knew there was no evidence of a vast conspiracy between Trump and a foreign power.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate “ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials” on May 17, 2017. President Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper had access and was privy to all the “evidence” the U.S. government collected since the Russia investigation began in July 2016.
From July 2016 until Clapper’s appearance on “Meet the Press” in March 2017, not one shred of evidence linked anyone in Trump’s campaign to allegations listed in the Christopher Steele dossier or Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos’s meeting with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Clapper stated to Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on March 5, 2017 that the National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency had collected “no evidence” regarding “improper contacts” between Trump and Russia.
Speaking of more alphabet agencies, veteran journalist Bob Woodward is getting into the act, from DailyCaller.com:
BOB WOODWARD: FBI AND CIA HANDLING OF STEELE DOSSIER ‘NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED’
by Chuck Ross, 4-22-19
Legendary reporter Bob Woodward said Sunday that the FBI and CIA’s reliance on the Steele dossier “needs to be investigated” now that the Mueller report has undercut many of the salacious document’s claims.
Woodward reiterated in an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace his past statements that the dossier “has got a lot of garbage in it.”
Woodward said that he recently learned that the CIA included outtakes from the dossier in a draft of the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that laid out Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“What I found out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box.”
But wait; listen to this:
“I think it was the CIA pushing this. Real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out,” said Woodward.
PETER STRZOK SUSPECTED CIA WAS BEHIND INACCURATE MEDIA LEAKS
by Chuck Ross, 5-6-19
Peter Strzok suspected CIA employees were behind inaccurate leaks to the press regarding possible Trump campaign contacts with Russia, according to an email the former FBI counterintelligence official sent to colleagues in April 2017.
“I’m beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us. Might explain all these weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as source of some of the leaks,” Strzok wrote in an email to FBI colleagues on April 13, 2017.
Cue Dan Bongino: (Start at 3:10 — end at 11:00).
But where do we go? Where do we start? Rep Jim Jordan nails it.
We need to go back and look at how this fake “Russia Collusion” narrative started. The start impacts EVERYTHING else. pic.twitter.com/NQXUi7gt7i
Of course, Jerry “The Hutt” Nadler held a vote in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, May 8th which, in a completely partisan fashion of 24 to 16, found AG Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over the unredacted version of the Mueller report.
Trump asserts executive privilege to keep full Mueller report SECRET from Congress as his AG Bill Barr is held in CONTEMPT for refusing to hand it over
by Emily Goodin, 5-8-19
House Democrats voted to find Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to hand over the material
The vote in the House Judiciary Committee was along partisan lines: 24 to 16
The final vote came after a 6 and a half hour hearing on the contempt citation
It now goes to the House floor for a vote by the full chamber
President Donald Trump claimed executive privilege over the full, unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller
‘The President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege,’ White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler slammed the move, calling it ‘a clear escalation in the Trump administration’s blanket defiance’ of Congress
President Donald Trump on Wednesday claimed executive privilege over the full, unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and House Democrats found Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand it over.
The vote to on contempt charges, held in the House Judiciary Committee, was along partisan lines – 24 Democrats versus 16 Republican – and now goes before the full House chamber for a vote, where Democrats hold a 38-seat majority.
After the full House votes the issue is expected to end up in the courts.
But wait. This is all predicated on a falsehood. An offer was already made to the Demorats to view a much less redacted version. They adamantly refused to even to that. From Politico.com:
Dems reject Barr’s offer to view a less-redacted Mueller report
by Kyle Cheney & Andrew Desiderio, 4-19-19
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are rejecting an offer from Attorney General William Barr to view a significantly less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, contending that Barr is too severely limiting the number of lawmakers who can view it.
“Given the comprehensive factual findings presented by the special counsel’s report, some of which will only be fully understood with access to the redacted material, we cannot agree to the conditions you are placing on our access to the full report,” Pelosi, Schumer and other House and Senate Democratic committee chairs wrote in a letter to Barr on Friday.
But you had the opportunity. You still have the opportunity. From NationalReview.com:
Top Dems Now Have Access to All But Two Full, Seven Partial Lines of Mueller’s Obstruction Report
by Jack Crowe, May 8, 2019
As Congressional Democrats prepare to hold attorney general William Barr in contempt over his supposed lack of transparency, its worth remembering that he has made available to top Democrats the entirety of volume II of the Mueller report, save for two full and seven partial lines, which were redacted to protect grand jury secrecy in keeping with federal law.
In order to provide lawmakers with greater transparency into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Department of Justice placed a less-redacted version of his report in a secure room on Capitol Hill, and granted access to that room to congressional leaders of both parties, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of intelligence and judiciary committees in the House and Senate.
As of this writing, not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for the following seven redactions, two of which are applied to footnotes.
Here is what those redactions physically look like. These black marks are to what Jerry “The Hutt” Nadler is objecting. Look very closely.
And there are two very important reasons why conditions were placed.
The Democrats say Barr’s offer, which would allow just 12 senior lawmakers and certain staffers to see the fuller version of the report, also fails to guarantee lawmakers access to grand jury material. They say they’re open to “discussing a reasonable accommodation” but that members of investigative committees — such as the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee in each chamber — require access as well.
Once taken out of a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) the contents will be leaked by Demorats, period.
Grand Jury information cannot be made public. From the Criminal Resources Manual, the US Department of Justice, Rule 6(e)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P., prohibits “an attorney for the government” from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury, except as otherwise provided in the rules.
Sebastian Gorka addresses that very issue here.
Further, Rep Jim Jordan reveals it’s all a political ploy by Jerry The Hutt and the Demorats anyway.
Can you imagine being a member of the Leftists, Demorats or American Media Maggots today?
First, you lost the presidency to Orange Man Bad. Despite the numerous illegal, corrupt tricks you pulled involving the FBI, CIA, NSA and the FISA court. Then the OMB started to do precisely what he said he was going to do. He made two SCOTUS appointments, reduced regulations, eliminated positions and brought a lot of manufacturing back to the United States. He has kept us as safe on the border as federal courts would allow. Black and Hispanic unemployment is at its lowest rate in roughly FIFTY years. The economy is doing very well.
Then you banked on Robert Mueller coming back with Kill Recommendations against Donald John Trump, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head. $25 million dollars and two years later, utilizing an attorney staff comprised of nothing but Demorats, Mueller couldn’t make that conclusion. No connection between Trump, Russia, elections and whatnot. No outright charge of obstruction.
Now it’s time to attack new Attorney General William Barr because he’s making noise like he’s going to do what any real AG would do: look into the dossier, the FISA warrant and spying in general against an American citizen. Yes. SPYING.
Attorney General William Barr’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Department of Justice’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election, and his refusal to testify before House Judiciary Thursday, both revealed much about the new attorney general and the Democrats who sought to question him.
At their heart, clownish performances aside, the hearings confirmed what we already knew: President Trump was legitimately elected, despite President Obama’s knowledge of Russian interference attempts, and Democrats still can’t come to grips with this reality, two and a half years later.
She nailed it here:
Democrats are so afraid of an attorney general – finally – manifestly willing to do his duty to expose the rot, corruption, mendacity, and betrayals in our law enforcement apparatus working hand in hand with political partisans in the media and in elected government, that they are taking ever-riskier gambles.
It’s time to ask these questions:
What if powerful people — Leftists, Demorats — fall?
What if find collusion, corruption and conspiracy between Clinton, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, the Ohrs, Steele, and many others? What if it leads as I fully believe it does, right up to and into the Oval Office of Barack Hussein Obama himself?
Isn’t it odd how we’re discovering, with each passing day, that the very things Demorats are accusing Trump of, they themselves are guilty of — and he isn’t?
How will this affect Demorats in their 2020 presidential travails?
In a nutshell: haters gonna hate. And ain’ters gonna ain’t.
Nothing short of a video showing President Trump fellating Vladimir Putin — which Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots are fully convinced beyond the shadow of any doubt truly exists — it’s all one big cover-up.
Nadler, Pelosi, other Dems blast DOJ ahead of Mueller report release
by Samuel Chamberlain
Democrats in Congress attacked Attorney General William Barr Wednesday evening ahead of the Justice Department’s planned release of a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
Barr is set to hold a 9:30 a.m. news conference Thursday accompanied by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Mueller investigation after the special counsel’s appointment in May 2017. Neither Mueller nor other members of his team will attend, according to special counsel spokesman Peter Carr. Democrats have criticized the timing of the news conference, saying that Barr would get to present his interpretation of the Mueller report before Congress and the public see it.
But here’s the crux of the biscuit:
At a news conference Wednesday evening, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the panel was expected to receive a copy of the report between 11 a.m. and noon, “well after the attorney general’s 9:30 a.m. press conference. This is wrong.”
And therein lies the PSH factor. Demorats hate that the AG is going to release — to us terribly unwashed citizens — an amount of information prior to The Anointed Ones.
As a result there is a new Twitter hashtag trending — #BoycottBarr — in which “journalists” (and I wield that word quite loosely since there are only a handful of real living journalists extant) are advocating the boycott of the AG Barr release.
As if anyone gives the most remote fuckish semblance should “journalists” refuse to attend said press conference. Note to AMM: there will ALWAYS be one of you there to cut the knees off other “journalists.” Guaranteed. So piss on your flintlock.
This week’s continuing problem is now truly twofold: you’re dealing with a president who doesn’t really need the job, and an attorney general who doesn’t really need the job either. And neither one of them really quite care what the rest of the planet thinks of them. They’ve already done their bit. They couldn’t care less if you think they’re unimpressive.
They’re there to do a job.
Late Wednesday, Nadler and four other Democratic committee chairs released a joint statement calling on Barr to cancel the Thursday morning news conference, calling it “unnecessary and inappropriate.”
Uh, no. Bad Orange Man doesn’t care what you think. Neither does man who said this:
“Spying did occur. And I need to explore that.” Those subsequent few words instigated the explosion of hundreds of heads, more camshafts were thrown, and a future path was revealed. As in: “I’m going to backtrack a lot of this. Starting today.”
Footsteps. Certain personnel can hear footsteps. Because it would appear that, unlike the completely inadequate and milktoast Jeff Sessions, William Barr is an adult with a sense of history, America, law, justice and responsibility. With the authority to dive deep. Translated: he’s not recusing shit.
As Barr’s four page summary revealed:
In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
Meaning: Mueller utilized the tools provided to his best advantage.
As I worked for the FBI myself, let me define two things. “Pen registers” are captured phone numbers from either landlines or cellular, and Title III — included but not mentioned here — are actual wiretaps. Guaranteed those occurred. No matter what anyone tells you.
Ten post-Mueller questions that could turn the tables on Russia collusion investigators
Soon, the dust will settle from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and Americans will have a fuller understanding of why prosecutors concluded there wasn’t evidence to establish that Donald Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
At that point, many voters exhausted by the fizzling of a two-year scandal, once billed as the next Watergate, will want to move on like a foodie from an empty-calorie shake.
But a very important second phase of this drama is about to begin, as Attorney General William Barr, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) put the Russia collusion investigators under investigation.
Their work will be, and must be, far more than just a political boomerang.
Really? Do tell. And I hope John Solomon understands when I reproduce all of his salient questions here — with clear attribution: John Solomon.
1.) When did the FBI first learn that Steele’s dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party and written by a partisan who, by his own admission, was desperate to defeat Trump? Documents and testimony I reviewed show senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr first told his colleagues about Steele’s bias and connections to Clinton in late summer 2016. Likewise, sources tell me a string of FBI emails — some before the bureau secured its first surveillance warrant — raised concerns about Steele’s motive, employer and credibility.
2.) How much evidence of innocence did the FBI possess against two of its early targets, Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page? My sources tell me that agents secured evidence of the innocence of both men from informants, intercepts and other techniques that was never disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges in the case. I’m told learning exactly the sort of surveillance used on Page also may surprise some people.
3.) Why was the Steele dossier used as primary evidence in the FISA warrant against Page when it had not been corroborated? FBI testimony I reviewed shows agents had just begun checking out the dossier when its elements were used as supporting evidence, and that spreadsheets kept by the bureau during the verification process validated only small pieces of the dossier while concluding other parts were false or unprovable. And, of course, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted that, after nine months of investigation, the dossier’s core allegation of Trump-Russia collusion could not be substantiated.
4.) Why were Steele’s biases and his ties to the Clinton campaign — as well as evidence of innocence and flaws in the FISA evidence — never disclosed to the FISA court, as required by law and court practice?
5.) Why did FBI and U.S. intelligence officials leak stories about evidence in the emerging Russia probe before they corroborated collusion, and were any of those leaks designed to “create” evidence that could be cited in the courts of law and public opinion to justify the continuation of a flawed investigation?
6.) Did Comey improperly handle classified information when he distributed memos of his private conversations with Trump to his lawyers and a friend and ordered a leak that he hoped would cause the appointment of a special counsel after his firing as FBI director?
7.) Did the CIA, FBI or Obama White House engage in activities — such as the activation of intelligence sources or electronic surveillance — before the opening of an official counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016?
8.) Did U.S. intelligence, the FBI or the Obama administration use or encourage friendly spy agencies in Great Britain, Australia, Ukraine, Italy or elsewhere to gather evidence on the Trump campaign, leak evidence, or get around U.S. restrictions on spying on Americans?
9.) Did the CIA or Obama intelligence apparatus try to lure or pressure the FBI into opening a Trump collusion probe or acknowledge its existence before the election? Text messages between alleged FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page raised concerns about “pressure” from the White House, the “Agency BS game,” DOJ leaks and the need for an FBI “insurance policy.” And, as Strzok texted at one point in August 2016, quoting a colleague: “The White House is running this.”
10.) Did any FBI agents, intelligence officials or other key players in the probe provide false testimony to Congress? McCabe already has been singled out by the inspector general for lying about a media leak to an internal DOJ probe, and evidence emerged this year that calls into question Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony about his contacts with Ohr.
Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
That was the setup. Now comes the truth.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong.
Jabba or Jerry? Which is the true Hutt?
I can hear them. Can’t you?
And there are two very important reasons why conditions were placed.
In a nutshell: haters gonna hate. And ain’ters gonna ain’t.
As if anyone gives the most remote fuckish semblance should “journalists” refuse to attend said press conference. Note to AMM: there will ALWAYS be one of you there to cut the knees off other “journalists.” Guaranteed. So piss on your flintlock.