Thursday, August 22, 2019

Red Meat For Unknown

I'm sure it's been noticed that in the comments I've been getting some pushback to my narrative of optimism. Commenter Unknown is the most prominent, but there have been others.

I don't want to be accused of hiding the ball, so here's my baseline for success--for Barr as AG in the biggest political crisis America has ever faced:

1) Truly significant prosecutions, i.e., prosecutions of major figures like Comey, Brennan, and players on a similar level at DoJ, in the White House, and in the Hillary campaign structure (Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr, possibly lawyers); and/or (because I always try to be reasonable,

2) Truly significant revelations of the complete shape of the coup plot via declassification.

Less than this--one or the other will do, but preferably both--will constitute failure. For Barr, not necessarily for Trump. Success for Trump at this point is reelection. He has his own ways of getting the truth out. And I repeat what I've said recently: Trump gives every indication of being very pleased with Barr's performance thus far. I have to assume that that means Trump knows things we don't.

With that said, here's the Red Meat for the Nabobs of Negativity, and it comes from a real veteran observer of the Washington Swamp Inside Game, Paul Sperry. Sperry went on an absolute tear on Twitter last night, and I reproduce below his highly negative, even defeatist, tweets--although, you'll see that they're intermixed with truth continuing to come out. My only comment is this: Sperry appears to believe that if the NYT and WaPo decline to cover the Russia Hoax story as it is--rather than serving as propaganda organs for the Dems--then defeat is around the corner for conservatives. To me, his attitude seems ironic. Here he is, a journalist, tweeting this negativity yet not appearing to understand the power of the new media, which Trump revealed to stunning effect by his very election and by his continued successes.

So, Sperry, and your Red Meat for Thursday morning:

Paul Sperry‏

 20h20 hours ago

We know the FBI & DOJ committed a fraud on the FISA court. We know the CIA & FBI committed a fraud on the IC's federal agency "customers" + the US public w the phony ICA. But now it appears the SCO/Mueller committed a fraud on a federal grand jury and the US District Court for DC

 19h19 hours ago

We were led to believe Russians spent hundreds of thousands on social media to influence the election, when in fact it was a paltry $2,930. Looking more and more like Mueller’s social media/trolling case was a political indictment to buttress the "Russian interference" narrative

 17h17 hours ago

HRC is the mastermind behind the whole political dirty trick and frame-up of Trump as a tool for the Kremlin, yet no one's asking her about her role in this dirtiest of dirty tricks. Nor Obama about his role in it.
There is your real collusion: Hillary + Obama + MSM.

 17h17 hours ago

No,I'm not sanguine about justice being served in #SpyGate scandal. DOJ brass won't indict DOJ brass. The bad guys know things about those investigating them & will threaten to leak it to MSM. And the MSM won't cover the scandal to pressure justice. They're blacking out the story

 18h18 hours ago

The Obama/Brennan ICA on Russian "interference"=cornerstone of entire Democrat narrative to explain away the huge 2016 upset by Trump & they need to keep it alive in 2020 as an excuse for a Trump reelection, thus the scaremongering over "election security." But the ICA's a fraud

I'll close with this. The bad guys thought they knew things about Trump, or could get away with inventing such things--what happened? The bad guys thought they could force Barr to buckle to them with the usual smears--what happened? The only evidence I see so far is that Trump is winning and Barr is winning. Yes, there are speed bumps in his path, but there are no signs that he has backed off, and there is no sign that "the bad guys know things" about him. If they did, at this point, I think we'd all know.

ADDENDUM: Even sundance, after his usual snarking negativity last night, begins today with:

We are approaching the never-before-reached strata of “too much winning”.

Which is it? Winning or losing?


  1. Despite the contentiousness of my prior comments, we all want the same thing and I actually agree with you that Barr is the right man for the job and Durham is no Huber, he most definitely isn't a head-fake. They will pursue real investigations and there will be indictments.

    But let's be honest about reality. The Deep State is huge and very powerful and utterly ruthless. Barr and Durham are fighting an uphill battle with traitors on their staffs and the FBI is in shambles. It is still led by Wray and he is Brutus incarnate.

    My biggest fear is that Barr seriously underestimates the criminality arrayed against him and does so at his peril and the peril of our country and constitutional governance. He can mitigate this disadvantage by rallying the honest professionals that still remain in DOJ and FBI. They are waiting in the wings for a Churchill to emerge. They are capable and formidable and courageous. They can tip the scales back to the Good Guys. Inspire them, and you will have a Braveheart movement.

    1. "we all want the same thing"

      I've never doubted that.

      "Barr and Durham are fighting an uphill battle with traitors on their staffs"

      So is Trump, as witness the Greenland leak.

      "the FBI is in shambles. It is still led by Wray and he is Brutus incarnate."

      Nobody could agree more than I, and I trust my attitude toward Wray has been unambiguous.

      "My biggest fear is that Barr seriously underestimates the criminality arrayed against him"

      This I strongly doubt. Strongly.

      "He can mitigate this disadvantage by rallying the honest professionals that still remain in DOJ and FBI."

      Bringing in Durham in the first place was just such a move--a career prosecutor who has investigated Mueller in the past and is experienced in organized crime investigations.

      "They are waiting in the wings for a Churchill to emerge."

      To lead them to a legal and investigative Gallipoli, or to give speeches? I like Barr's leadership so far.

    2. Churchill is in the White House NOW.

    3. You're aware that Churchill led the Conservatives to electoral defeat before the end of WW2?

  2. I confess to an often snitty reaction to some reporters' repetitive BOMBSHELL! reports of DEVASTATING information that will be declassified and set the world right.
    Barr doesn't speak like that, and Trump no longer does. That's a positive sign of seriousness from Barr and Trump.
    Hold fire until I have a kill shot, would be my motto, if I were a hunter.

  3. Mark--Could you clarify what Sperry is referencing with:

    "the SCO/Mueller committed a fraud on a federal grand jury and the US District Court for DC"

    In particular, on the US District Court for DC. (The saying, "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich" implies rules at odds to the requirement to deliver exculpatory evidence to the defendant.)

    And where does the "in fact it was a paltry $2,930" come from? Google and Facebook previously testifies to Congress regarding roughly $100,000 and $50,000 in ad spending "by Russians." Paltry sums compared to total 2016 campaign spending.

    1. It's about the Concord Management case. I probably shoulda written about this. Three links: (links to GP)

      in a motion filed Monday in court, Concord argued that it spent less than $5,000 on candidate ads and rallies that would be subject to government auditing, according to The Washington Times.

      The cost figures cited by Concord, which include $2,930 on campaign ads plus $1,800 for payroll during the 2016 election, are based on evidence from U.S. prosecutors, the newspaper noted.

      ... The firm says some of the online ads listed in an indictment brought by special counsel Robert Mueller cost less than $10 each and added up to $2,930. Conjured-up rallies cost another $1,833 in payroll.


      Concord attorney Eric Dubelier used the terms “misleading” and “demonstrably false” in disputing the allegations.

      “The allegation in the Indictment claiming that IRA spent thousands of dollars each month to purchase advertisements is at best misleading and at worst demonstrably false because the discovery indicates that many of the advertisements took place after the 2016 presidential election or did not involve any clearly identifiable candidate,” Dubelier argued in the filing.

  4. I saw Paul's tweets today, too, and was distressed to read them. Especially when he said that DOJ brass won't indict fellow DOJ brass.

    If Barr were to walk away without prosecutions (assuming he found sufficient evidence), he'd be a fraud.

    I'm sticking with him until he gives me reason not to. So far, he hasn't disappointed.

    I've been more and more confident that indictments are coming. You'll have to talk me off a ledge if we're both wrong.