Pages

Friday, May 17, 2019

UPDATED: "A Real Attorney General"

If you haven't watched this interview with Devin Nunes, it's a must view. Nunes is clearly worked up and more plain spoken than I've ever seen him.

In response to segments of the Bill Barr interview with Fox News, in which Barr says that he has more questions now about the Russia Hoax than when he first started as AG, and that the questions he's received are inadequate, Nunes points out that the same is true for the House. For example, he says, just this week, even today, they've finally seen interagency emails regarding Christopher Steele--emails that "the FBI" (he means "Chris Wray") had hidden from Congress.

How did we just find out about this [the Kavalec email]? ... I think what you're seeing is, you're seeing a real Attorney General, a professional, and someone who's not gonna take this poisonous garbage [started by the Dems, and still pushed by irresponsible Dems and their media allies.]

I think I get it. Jeff Sessions wasn't a real Attorney General, nor was Rod Rosenstein. If Devin Nunes knows this, count on it: Bill Barr sure knows it. And I think he's telling us that Barr told Chris Wray how high to jump. When opportunity offers, Wray will be gone. Barr doesn't want to go through another confirmation just now, but if Wray wants to leave, it'll be: Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. In the meantime, he's got him on a leash--a short one.

As for Barr not shying away from the word "spying"?

Sandra, it's ridiculous. Every American out there knows what spying is. This [objecting to the "S" word] is all about narrative building by the Left to cover up what they did, and you have accomplices in the media. This is foolishness. ... He [Barr] used to work at the CIA, for God's sake. I've never seen something so ridiculous, where the media is culpable for this nonsense. Everybody in the media oughta be laughing at these politicians ... It's a joke, it's a joke.


The Russia Hoax was perpetrated at "very senior levels" [quoting Barr]? At the FBI, at the CIA, at other agencies that were involved? Barr even referenced an "ad hoc small group of people"?

Yeah, and let me get to the heart of this problem ... 
Bill asked the Attorney General about, What did "Bob" Mueller know? When did he know there was no collusion? "Bob" Mueller knew, the day that he walked in the door, there was no evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians. Think about it! ... 
The Attorney General didn't answer that question, but I'm able to answer it ...

Oh my! Mueller was part of the Russia Hoax! Well, I guess we knew that, but, yeah, let's think about that--and keep thinking about it. Because he had his enablers in politics and the media--in both parties! Let's keep thinking about that.





Bonus:





UPDATE:


Listen to John Ratcliffe--it's great to have an Attorney General who's committed to holding people accountable. Ratcliffe is saying "the Obama administration." It's uplifting.





35 comments:

  1. As long as Barr is even half as serious as POTUS about getting to the bottom of this thing (and even MY irremediable cynicism in all things DC feels cautiously optimistic on that score), it's all over but the crying.

    The fight or flight response of the guilty will be something to behold, no doubt, and the victory will of course be less than total. But the paper trail is there, and that fact alone gives Barr & Trump what should be the decisive advantage moving forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that will be key: there will be a paper trail. Or a digital trail.

      Delete
  2. Feel free to not post my question if you think it's out of bounds.

    So Trump tweets: TREASON

    One legal definition is "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies."

    Conservative sentiment seems to be it's a Pandora's box.

    Do you think there's an actual basis for it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of bounds? No. Trump is arguably right in the general sense--something similar to the definition you quote--but not according to the US Constitution. Article III, section 3, defines and limits treason :

      "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

      That's why everyone is worked up about offenses that may not seem serious: false statements, leaks, etc. Those offenses are what will make the case against the coup plotters.

      Delete
    2. 1) Russia is among our "enemies" and 2) Obama officials collaborated, knowingly, with Russian disinformation agents to harm the President.

      The charge of treason is legitimate. Clinton/Comey/Brennan/Clapper/Rice/Lynch were actively using Russian disinformation to harm the President.

      Delete
    3. Problem: we're not at war with Russia and the interpretation has always been that the Constitution requires an actual war. I assume you put "enemies" in quotes because it's susceptible of various interpretations. Here you can find a list of people convicted of treason against the US:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason

      Note who's not on that list: the Rosenbergs, who were executed for espionage, but not for treason. The Founding Fathers didn't want the charge of treason to be easy.

      Delete
  3. Maria Bartiromo has stood out this entire two years as the leading TV news anchor who has understood the seriousness of the "Russia Hoax" offenses by the Obama Administration against the Trump administration. She has articulated the issues, understood factual revelations, and aptly questioned guests from the Senate and Congress. This media person has integrity and helped to reveal the facts. Plus she has a command of the issues and the entire timeline of events. Thank goodness for her voice in this process. I, for one, kept expecting that the liberal Murdochs would try to stop her.

    The only recent revelation that is now puzzling is the apparent surveillance of Gen. Flynn BEFORE his joining the Trump campaign and administration. Andrew McCarthy today seemed to get distracted by the shiny object of Flynn's work for the Turkish government; as a consequence he suggested that there was a criminal investigation against Flynn pre-dating the final months of the Trump campaign and then crossing over the counter-intelligence investigation right before the Trump victory. Also, the alleged Mueller revelation that someone in the Trump administration or Congress obstructed justice by trying to coordinate with Flynn to maintain his alliance with Trump during Flynn's travails as a suspect. Andrew McCarthy and Juan Williams jumped at this as a worrisome event which "shows" there are still potential troubles ahead for Trump and his family. It meshes with the actions of McConnell and Richard Burr. With friends like these who needs enemies? Perhaps you could comment on this possible Flynn nexus of overlap of criminal and counter-intelligence investigations?
    Your columns add a lot to our collective knowledge of these events. LA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, mu understanding is that when Comey confirmed the "enterprise CI investigation" against "four Americans" in Congressional testimony, he was confirming an investigation against Flynn. So this isn't some sort of revelation. I'm not sure of the timeline, nor is anyone else really, because it's all classified. However, in addition to the lobbying for Turkey there were claims of a "relationship" with Russia based on his trip to Russia. Flynn's supporters have pushed back that he was briefed and debriefed.

      Personally, I believe it was all payback and needs to be brought out in public.

      Re obstruction, there's a reason why Mueller didn't make the claim but only tried to smear Trump--asking for a "heads up" doesn't amount to obstruction under the traditional interpretation.

      Overlap of crim and CI? Re USPERS there basically always is. That's why a FISA on a USPER requires a criminal predicate. If there is no criminal predicate, what's going on is normally an attempt to recruit the USPER for use against a foreign power.

      Watch the Tony Shaffer video on all this--it's excellent:

      https://youtu.be/ITvnDtuRIgM

      Delete
    2. Anon, here's a Chuck Ross twitter thread that sets out some of the stuff that's known re targeting of Flynn. It appears, as you go through this stuff, that they were targeting Flynn the same way they targeted Page and Papadopoulos--with "OCONUS lures" (Strzok) using Halper and such. This goes back as far as 2014 and has a Russian angle. As I surmised, the Turkish stuff was probably just Flynn being his own worst enemy. The bigger point is the weaponization of CIA/FBI against anyone the admin didn't like.

      Delete
    3. And now here's a more readable link that covers a lot of the same ground, and traces the hatred for Flynn back to his breaking ranks re ISIS:

      Mueller’s Reprehensible Ultimatum to General Flynn: Your Son or Your Country? Make Your Decision!

      Delete
  4. Jimmy Comey on Twitter

    "The AG should stop sliming his own Department. If there are bad facts, show us, or search for them professionally and then tell us what you found. An AG must act like the leader of the Department of Justice, an organization based on truth. Donald Trump has enough spokesmen."

    Mark Wauck on Meaning in History about six months ago.

    "Barr will be the attorney general in full."

    Wauck, with the win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh, wanna bet Comey has scored an own goal by daring Barr to "show us"?

      Delete
  5. More Jimmy Comey on Twitter

    "The president claiming the FBI’s investigation was “TREASON“ reminds me that a Russian once said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” That shouldn’t happen in America. Who will stand up?"

    Johnny Brennan on Twitter

    "Senator Graham & his ilk bear responsibility for damage being done to our national interests—at home & abroad—by acquiescing to Mr. Trump’s incompetence, corruption, & malevolence. Who will shun political expedience & do what is right? “Who among you is wise and understanding?”

    First a question. If John Brennan refused to call DJT President Trump and instead calls him Mr. Trump, does that nullify DJT's election? LOL

    Second, I am setting up a Go Fund Me account for Brennan and Comey to pay for their upcoming legal costs. If and when the time comes, I will add Jimmy Clapper. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Expanding just a bit re what I wrote about treason in response to dfp21, above: While Trump may not be correct re treason under the US Constitution, it remains valid IMO to use "treason" in its more general sense, as understood by virtually everybody. Even Brennan gets it: "betraying and damaging the national interest." And Brennan doesn't get to define "national interest." We the people vote in elections to define that.

      Delete
    2. When I insisted, at 1AM, on accusing the Obama admin of treason, I didn't and still don't care (now with coffee) whether anybody is actually charged with that offense. That's not the point.

      My point is to encourage people to admit the magnitude of the offense the Democrats are still, to this day, committing against all of us who voted against Democrat wishes.

      Democrats are no longer allowing a peaceful transition of power between political parties. People are now IN PRISON because Democrats (Obama, Lynch, Brennan, Comey, Mueller & his gang) insisted on punishing people for being allies of Donald Trump.

      This is the start of a Civil War - one side refuses to lose an election.

      Delete
    3. Well put. I agree entirely.

      Delete
  6. I agree.

    I struggle to put find the right term to explain what they did. They definitely betrayed their oath of fidelity to The Constitution. They betray The Nation and the trust that impute to them.

    Well said, about "We the People."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's frustrating that there appears to be no specific criminal statute that covers federal officials who are obviously conspiring to commit crimes for the purpose of overturning an election. I'm no expert, but a quick search re RICO as well as Election Law violations didn't turn anything up. Possibly the Hatch Act? Not sure. This is why everyone is focusing on what probably appear to most people to be somewhat technical violations, rather than violations that fit the "big picture" of what was really going on. Nevertheless, if a conspiracy is charged, the big picture narrative comes in, I believe.

      Betrayal of trust, abuse of office, lots of ways to describe it.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Mike. That's a very interesting discussion. I may try to work that into something. It seems worth the discussion. Generally I don't like to stretch legal interpretations of statutes, but from my initial skim of this, there could be a case. BTW, this was a favorite statute for Weissmann!

      Delete
    3. My bad, Mike! I've actually discussed that statute several times in the past. The context was, I was asking, What is Mueller's prosecutive theory? Looking back, I see that I didn't disagree with the use of that as a theory--the question was, did it fit the real facts. It looks promising. Thanks again!

      Delete
  7. Did you see the video of a female student at a North Carolina university who is arrested for stealing a sign from a pro-life demonstrator. She is incredulous that she is being arrested and that the policeman defends their rights of free speech. She obfuscates by saying that she didn't steal the man's sign; she only moved it 50 feet.

    It's the same attitude displayed by Comey and Brennan. Seriously. That is the level of maturity displayed by two former senior officials of the US Government. Comey, when he filled out the internet meme about five jobs that he held stated "FBI Director -- Interrupted."

    So, Comey and Brennan have the maturity level of a 21 year-old college student?

    Sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I did see that, and enjoyed it no end. Remarkable how the Left is trying to legitimate political violence.

      Delete
  8. The SpyGate/RussiaGate investigations are really just a portal to an overarching investigation of the foundational weoponization (and associated criminality) of the Executive Branch in service to political and financial enrichment ends. The FISA 702 abuse has been going on since at least 2010 and it will soon be revealed that the Clinton SoS pay-for-play corruption was not only about selling influence, but also facilitated the theft of classified information and technology to China and others. Similarly, Obama's deal with Iran was all about personal enrichment. A fraction of the billions he sent their way bounced back into his pocket. As regards the treason definition, the use of the term is mostly about establishing a political narrative and not really intended as a legal claim. The word treason accurately conveys the seriousness of the crimes that have been committed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. That's why I'm puzzled that I haven't seen any discussions of "conspiracy" in the technical legal sense--as a possible charge.

      Delete
  9. Definitely there were Hatch Act violations. I'm not sure if they carry an type of criminal fines.

    How about violating the honest services provisions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to see some discussion on this by some real experts in criminal law.

      Delete
  10. Same here. Thankfully, we have a real expert in William Barr.

    I agree that RICO is a possibility as are violation of the civil rights of DJT, Papa D, etc.

    I am not a lawyer. I only one on TV.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Should be "I only play one on TV."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Would also like to point out that Comey seems to be unable to stop projecting. Here are a few examples but there are dozens more:

    Comey: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

    Comey: "That shouldn’t happen in America. Who will stand up?"

    Comey: "The AG should stop sliming his own Department".

    Comey: "An AG must act like the leader of the Department of Justice, an organization based on truth".

    Comey: "I’m sad for our country."

    Comey: "So many questions."

    Comey: "I am rooting for a demonstration to the world that the United States justice system works."

    Comey: "I spoke on campus about my faith that the core values of this country will prevail."

    Comey: "Truth matters."

    Comey: "We must not accept or be numb to amoral leadership. Thankful for patriots across the political spectrum who are speaking out".

    Comey: "Do not stop speaking and living American values."

    Comey: "The United States should be a shining light for the world, modeling a democracy that values truth, respects free press, protects human rights, and stands against murderers, oppression, and bigotry."

    ---Cassander

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait ... is this Comey or are these quotations from Chairman Barack?

      Delete
  13. I haven't much use for Andy McCarthy since his role in the Birther movement. I recall him roaming the halls of the SDNY with his buddy the ever career ambitious Michael Horowits, now DOJ IG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand. A lot of these guys come from the same mold. My own reservations go back to his defense of the indefensible--the role his fellow SDNY alums Fitzpatrick, Comey, and Mueller played in the Lewis Libby case. Not that I'm a fan of Libby. It's the principle of rule of law. However, as I said the other day, I take truth wherever I find it and if Horowitz and McCarthy are on the right side now, I'm glad. His analysis has improved. For quite a while IMO he was misleading people re FISA law and CI generally (you can still see the effects of that in the Kim Strassel video I linked, separately).

      Delete
    2. Here's an example of an excellent basic point that McCarthy makes that is a real help for people trying to understand this process:

      @AndrewCMcCarthy

      Replying to @JohnWHuber

      I wouldn’t make this about the Woods Procedure. It’s basic: Steele was not the SOURCE; he was the ACCUMULATOR/PURVEYOR of the info, like a case agent. You can’t get a warrant on the case agent’s credibility; you’re supposed to give court reasons to rely on actual sources.

      4:41 PM - 18 May 2019

      Delete