UPDATED: Tony Shaffer: What The Left Is Most Worried About

In the wake of yesterday's events I may be updating this post multiple times. We'll see. It appears to me that we'll be getting bits and pieces of insight rather than major revelations at this point. Here, Tony Shaffer--a knowledgeable guy--hits the nail on the head:

Tony Shaffer
‏
Verified account

@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y

Based on the panicked calls I got from a @washingtonpost reporter yesterday - every 30 minutes - who wanting me to discuss the #Crowdstrike issue, this is what the left is most worried about - Catherine Herridge does a great job here with @LouDobbs breaking down why...Tony Shaffer added,

2:15
The “Dirty” Truth

@AKA_RealDirty
Catherine Herridge talks about crowd strike and the server. 

5:10 AM - 26 Sep 2019

Of course the Left is freaking over the revelation that Barr/Durham are hot on the trail of the Crowdstrike coverup and the truth about the DNC server and "Russian hack." That whole narrative is at the heart of the CIA/FBI con of Intel Assessment--Barr knows this and has taken aim at that heart.

Meanwhile the idiot editorialists at the WSJ think that because "Bill Barr" didn't contact Zelenskyy that somehow means nothing came of the phone call. Durham's team is hard at work--they're the ones doing the nitty gritty investigation. We know that because DoJ confirmed that yesterday at the same time DoJ said Barr never talked to Zelenskyy. Barr is far too smart to go stepping on SoS Pompeo's toes by communicating directly with heads of state. However, Trump's constant references to Barr in the transcript--only Zelenskyy brings up Giuliani--is a strong indication of how highly Trump values Barr. And it was an indication to Zelenskyy and "his people" that Barr and "his people", i.e., Team Durham, have Trump's full backing.

Commenter Titan 28, importantly, points out that the absurd attempt to smear AG Barr as Trump's "personal" lackey--the "whistleblower" says Trump names "Giuliani and Barr" as his "personal representatives"--may well be one of the main points in the entire "whistleblower" narrative. The point reinforces that the Left viscerally fears Barr and knows how important he is to Trump.

Here's how I addressed that in a comment earlier (edited):

I disagree that the "whistleblower" memo is a clever document. Rather it reads as if Glenn Simpson or Chris Steele wrote it. When you read for example that Trump named Giuliani and Barr as his "personal representatives" to Zelenskyy ... 

Sorry, Bill Barr is NOBODY'S personal representative. He's Attorney General of the United States and head of the Department of Justice. To suggest otherwise is pure BS, and any attempt to follow up on such nonsense will backfire badly.

The reason Dems are freaking out is because the transcript reveals that Barr is indeed on the trail of the Deep State. They fear Barr viscerally and will stop at nothing to fear. Barr knows that, too--that's the very good news. 

The WSJ writes today that DoJ says Barr never contacted Zelenskyy "so nothing came of the call." Wrongo! 

Of course Barr didn't contact Zelenskyy--Barr isn't going to step on Pompeo's toes like that. But what the transcript confirms, and what DoJ confirmed yesterday, is that John Durham's team IS investigating the Ukraine Connection. Count on it, the call produced tangible results. Durham and/or "his people" have been in touch with Zelenskyy's people.

I must be really slow on the uptake this morning, to fail to notice that the "whistleblower's" claim that AG Barr was named by Trump as one of his "personal representatives" perfectly tracks the earlier Dem talking point that Barr, in his testimony and treatment of the Mueller Dossier, was acting as if he were Trump's "personal lawyer." As we saw yesterday in the actual call transcript, nothing could have been further from the truth. But this tracking of memes may be an indicator of--get ready--collusion between the "whistleblower" and Dems, both in the Executive and Legislative branches.

UPDATE 1: By now many visitors here may have read Devin Nunes' excellent opening statement in the "whistleblower" hearing. From my perspective it's simply pointless to go through the memo line by line. Nunes gets to the heart of it all very simply:

• The complaint relied on hearsay evidence provided by the whistleblower.
• The Inspector General did not know the contents of the phone call at issue.
• The Inspector General found that the whistleblower displayed “arguable political bias” against Trump.
• The Department of Justice investigated the complaint and determined no action was warranted.

Can you say BS? I can. Nunes points out that this Ukraine Hoax is all, in concept, just a rerun of the Russia Hoax. How uncreative! And John Ratcliffe went through all the inaccuracies (i.e., lies) that can be verified by comparison to the call transcript. Just as was done with all the nonsense in the Russia Hoax.

Zerohedge does an excellent job taking it all down. "I Was Not A Witness To Any Of It". From a fairly lengthy blog:

     "In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."

... 

     "Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort." 

... 

     "I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,"

The entire note reads like a journalist or lawyer wrote it, and citing NYTimes numerous times lends it even less credibility.

No, no, could it be?

Simply put, some folks told some other folks about administration folks that might be talking to some Ukrainian folks?

Perhaps the most interesting part is the following...

     "I was not a witness to most of the events described... However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible..."

Perhaps he would better named a "gossip-blower".

What we're seeing here is real desperation, coming just weeks after the crash and burn of the desperate Kavanaugh gambit. Look--Schiff, and therefore Pelosi, have known for over a month how threadbare this was, and yet they decided that they had no choice but to take a gamble on it. That is sheer desperation. They're going up against a world class politician in Trump and a world class lawyer in Barr. Gambling against opponents like that will not end well.

UPDATE 2: Piers Morgan:

So unless some new dynamite piece of information emerges during the investigations then this bid will inevitably fail, and everyone knows it. 

And everyone also knows how gleefully Trump likes to seize on failure and mock ‘losers’. 

He shamelessly used the Mueller Report to go on a seemingly never-ending one-man ticker tape parade, branding the media who obsessed about it ‘fake news’ and his political opponents a bunch of useless wastrels who got their come-uppance for lying about him. 

Just imagine what Trump would do with an impeachment acquittal in the run-up to November, 2020?! 

So why in hell have the Democrats done this? 

Well, I believe it’s what NFL fans call a ‘Hail Mary Pass’, one made in desperation with the knowledge that it has very little chance of success.