Monday, February 17, 2020

UPDATED: I Believe Andrew Weissmann

There are currently two narratives making the rounds about AG Bill Barr. Both portray Barr as a bit of an evil genius, but from distinctively different perspectives.

The first narrative is put forward by former Mueller consigliere, Andrew Weissmann:

One of Robert Mueller's former top prosecutors said the outside prosecutor picked to review the case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is a ruse to investigate President Trump's perceived enemies. 
Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department official who was known as Mueller's "pit bull" during the Russia investigation, said the Justice Department swapped out the "loser case" of Andrew McCabe, who escaped criminal charges on Friday for allegedly lying to investigators about authorizing media disclosures, for a fresh one targeting top former FBI officials, including McCabe, led by Jeffrey Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. 
"All they did was swapped out a loser case for starting an investigation that is going to be of Comey, McCabe, Pete Strzok," Weissmann told MSNBC host Chuck Todd. 
All three officials were involved in the investigation into the Trump 2016 campaign's alleged ties to Russia, which Trump and his allies have called a "witch hunt." Mueller, who took over the inquiry after FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017, found no criminal conspiracy when the investigation ended last year. 
Attorney General William Barr picked Jensen, the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis, to work alongside the Flynn case's lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack one month after the former Trump national security adviser filed to withdraw his guilty plea in Mueller's investigation. 
... Barr is also under intense scrutiny for U.S. Attorney John Durham's inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, which critics claim is meant to discredit Mueller's work.
The second narrative has been put forward repeatedly--not to say obsessively--by sundance at CTH. I count a minimum of four trademark on-and-on sundance posts attacking Barr in the last week alone. According to this narrative, Barr is busily defending the Deep State, deep sixing any possible prosecutions of people like ... Comey, McCabe, and Strzok--and many more. As usual, sundance is long on narrative but short on actual facts to demonstrate that Barr is covering up for the Deep State.

The timing of these attacks is remarkable, in that they come at a time when Barr is under increasing fire from the Left. Whom does sundance think he's helping? Tellingly, the only argument sundance offers is that Barr hasn't declassified what he (sundance) thinks should be declassified when he (sundance) thinks the docs should be declassified. Or, Barr hasn't indicted who he (sundance) thinks should be indicted when he (sundance) thinks they should be indicted. Nor does sundance offer anything at all persuasive to explain the nearly hysterical fear of Barr that we see in the Dem establishment and the allied Deep State intel agencies and MSM.

I think Weissmann's narrative is far and away more persuasive. The reason is that it recognizes the few things we know for sure. We know that Durham and Barr have traveled repeatedly to foreign powers seeking cooperation in their investigation of the Russia Hoax, we know that Durham is targeting CIA and FBI funding of key sources, we know that with the appointment of Jensen the Durham targeting is pointing not only at the top echelon at the FBI but also at Team Mueller and Weissmann, and of course the Horowitz deep dive into the FISA abuse also exposed vast amounts of related and highly troubling information about FBI and CIA criminality. Sundance's claim that all that is the action of Barr trying to cover it all up is to me absurd on its face.

The real question to me is: Who's behind these anti-Barr narratives? Looking to the Left, there's no doubt. But who's behind sundance? Why is he so obsessively anti-Barr? After all, who seriously thinks that Barr being driven from office at this juncture would help Trump and his agenda? It wouldn't. So whoever is behind sundance must be persons for whom hatred for Barr and Barr's supporters outweighs support for Trump.

As I've said before, it's clear that sundance is merely a frontman who is being fed insider information. The question, then, is: Who are the people who are behind sundance? My theory has been that those people are "conservative" elements who are enflamed by hostility toward the GOP establishment in the Senate and in past GOP presidencies, especially the Bush 2 presidency. I think you can see that as another consistent theme at CTH--hatred for Mitch McConnell, for example. Barr, of course, has for years had close ties to the GOP establishment and, in fact, contributed heavily to the Jeb! campaign.

If you can identify the people who fit into that portrait, you'll probably know who is inspiring and feeding sundance's obsessive anti-Barr narratives. My view is that the portrait is that of the Jim DeMint element of the Republican party.

UPDATE: Connoisseurs of Sundance Brand Koolaid like to point out that "after 3+ years no indictments" as proof that Barr--who's actually only been AG for 1 year--is covering up for the Deep State. They always avoid addressing the inconvenient and indisputable fact Barr has allowed One Thousand Investigations to Bloom. Commenter Titan 28 links to a blog by James Kunstler, At Stake, that provides a nice summation of the matters into which Barr, Durham, and others are probing--it's a daunting task Barr has taken on, and even a brief perusal of it explains why it hasn't all come to a head. I happen to share Kunstler's distaste for the use of "lying to the FBI" charges. OTOH, I think the various conspiracy statutes provide plenty of wherewithal for getting to the bottom of all this--I suspect Kunstler simply doesn't really understand what RICO is actually all about. Anyway, I've reformatted Kunstler to make it more digestible:

I have a theory about the McCabe case: The Attorney General has taken the rinky-dink “lying to the FBI” charge off the table. It has become a liability, virtually the emblem for government misconduct, and Mr. Barr is getting rid of it in these matters. It has already caused too much mischief, insulted Americans’ sense of justice, and damaged the DOJ’s standing. Note, Andrew McCabe has been let off only on this charge, stemming from only one particular IG referral; he may well yet be liable for more serious charges-to-come. From here on, there will be no more rinky-dink lying charges against any of those implicated in the coup, only the most serious charges, and only those that add up to a solid case.
The coup has been so broad, deep, and thick that I predict cases will have to be brought under the RICO statutes in batches for different groups in separate agencies and branches of government. For instance, there is 
1. the Intel Mob, including former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intel (DNI) James Clapper, current Intel IG Michael Atkinson, so-called whistleblower (he that cannot be named, E*** C**********) and International Man of Mystery Joseph Mifsud. 
2. There is the gang from the State Department who helped engineer UkraineGate, including former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, former Sec’y of State John Kerry, and others. 
3. There is that big herd of rogue lawyers in the DOJ and its stepchild, the FBI, the names widely disseminated by now, Comey, Strzok, Baker, Boente, Carlin, Clinesmith, et al. 
4. There’s Robert Mueller and his henchpersons, Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, et al. 
5. There’s another band of seditionists in Congress that includes Mark Warner of the Senate Intel Committee, the now notorious idiot Adam Schiff over in the House, and staffers who worked for both. 
6. There’s a bunch in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment that paid over a million dollars to Alternate International Man of Mystery (actually, CIA asset) Stefan Halper to run entrapment schemes against people working for Mr. Trump. 
7. There’s a swarm from Barack Obama’s White House, including Valarie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Alexandra Chalupa, former Vice-President Joe Biden and the former President himself. 
8. And finally, there is the 800-pound-gorilla over in the Democratic Party thicket, namely Hillary Clinton, and those connected to her and her charity fraud, the Clinton Foundation, which is the real and actual predicate for the whole sordid affair — a list that includes Viktor Vekselberg of Russia’s Skolkovo project, $25-million donor Russian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, and Dmitri Alperovich of CrowdStrike, (Russian collusion, anyone?) as well as rascally freelancers such as Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, the shadowy Nellie Ohr, lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman, and Hillary errand boys Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer. The stories behind those names are all over the web, in case you want to edify yourself.


  1. I stop by your blog for your perspective because it appears to be well reasoned. You are clear when what you are putting forth is fact or your informed opinion, and when it is belief or opinion you state your justification for this so we understand where you are coming from. Sundance puts things out there and hopes he is right.

    I think Barr is on the up and up, but I only have that belief and hold open the possibility that it might not prove to be true. Time will tell. But when Barr gave Spring as a timeline for developments in his investigation, I have to think he gave himself at least some margin of error. The calls for Barr's head are getting louder by the day, which to me can only imply Barr is making all the right people nervous. My speculation is Barr is hoping by the time he has to testify that he will be handing Nadler someone's head on a plate. Learning of the review of Flynn and other prosecutions that led from Hurricane Crossfire tells me that he is at the stage of investigating all the knock-on effects of the conspiracy to harm the Trump presidency. I would think you go there only when you are confident you can prove the origins of the Russia investigation were a fraud.

    1. I think you're on to something re "by the time he has to testify". Either declassifications (we've been told that Mueller 302s may soon be declassified) or public investigative developments. Or perhaps declassification of those footnotes that Grassley and Johnson wrote about. One way or another, like you I suspect Barr will go to the House with plenty of ammo.

  2. As a reader of CTH I find the hostility towards Barr and other elements of the Republican establishment are based in the fact that there have been no indictments of members of the coup cabal. None. Zip. Zero. In fact there is a concerted effort to salvage the "Russia hacked our election and the DNC server" narrative. Even questioning it freaks them out. I find the hostility well grounded in indisputable facts. So far they have all walked.

    1. "there is a concerted effort to salvage the "Russia hacked our election and the DNC server" narrative."

      Which is why Durham--with Barr's blessing--is targeting and questioning the analysts who produced the ICA and that whole narrative, over the strenuous objections of the Deep State.

      I note that you claim "indisputable facts" yet offer none.

      "So far they have all walked" isn't actually a fact--it's a fiction, a narrative without basis. Not-yet-indicted does not = walked. Not-yet-indicted = investigation is continuing, which IS an indisputable fact.

    2. Indisputable facts as in no indictments 3+ years later. That is an indisputable fact. Though, we can all draw different conclusions as to why that may be.

    3. Problem: 3+ years after ... what? NOT AB = After Barr. So why the obsessive hatred of Barr, who kickstarted all the investigations I referenced--which are actual indisputable facts for which you offer no explanation.

      "we can all draw different conclusions as to why that may be."

      So you adopt a strictly relativistic approach--as a defense. If we can all draw whatever the hell conclusions we want, then nobody can talk you out of your conspiracy theory. And you can point to your relativism to justify offering no convincing rationale for your conclusions, whereas I offered reasons.

    4. I could call your theory a conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't. I recognize you could be right. You are clearly not so burdened.

    5. Have you forgotten the pathetic AG named Jeff Sessions?
      As has been pointed out, Barr has been on the job one year and has opened numerous investigations. This conspiracy is so broad, it takes a while to get a handle on it IMHO.

    6. sundance gets more ridiculous. His latest post touts Barr pushing the investigations forward. After a week of conspiracy theory stuff--not for the first time.

    7. Those whining about 3+ years, no indictments, have overlooked (or never really knew) that a great deal of evidentiary material was locked up pending the completion of the Weissman/Mueller fiasco. Barr was brought in less than a year ago, as I recall.

      I have given up on the CTH threads because I am tired of what I call the “laptop commandos”… They don’t read entire articles. They are less than fully informed, but have lots of cynicism and lots of kneejerk opinions. Many are Eeyores, always expecting the worst. I spend far less time at CTH these days...

    8. Well if we use the "it takes a while" excuse for inaction, we just might save "our institutions" briefly before handing them off to Bernie or Bloomberg (aka Hillary) for their final destruction. Perhaps you've noticed the 2018 playbook is in use once again. And it worked in 2018 to flip the House. So Barr can save his precious DOJ and we all get screwed.

    9. As if the Dems' 2018 playbook--which, to give credit, was also Paul Ryan's playbook--is going to work again? It's not that easy, not post Mueller Dossier, which Barr exposed, not post impeachment, in which the Dems exposed themselves, not post Trump's resurgence.

      But go read sundance's most recent posts from yesterday--in which he appears now to be giving Barr credit. You'll need to adjust your position to keep up with the latest talking points from CTH.

    10. Let's hope you are right (about the playbook, not about me being a Sundance sycophant). With stakes like this I am not as confident as you are.

    11. Anonymous,

      It sounds like we are on the same side! We just have differing perspectives.

      All this bad stuff didn't just happen. Our country has been slouching toward Gomorrah for a long time. Barr and Durham have a lot to do. Even successful prosecutions aren't going to magically change our culture.

      Culture? That's a big part of our problem. That includes apathy, moral relativism, falling away from God, etc. Too many are easily led like sheep or lemmings.

      There's a lot of change needed at universities, media, government, primary and secondary schools, churches, etc. The rot is real.

      I wish I had a magic wand but I don't. I take it one day at a time. I keep my faith in God and hope for a Christian revival.

    12. @Mark

      "As if the Dems' 2018 playbook--which, to give credit, was also Paul Ryan's playbook--is going to work again?"

      Do you think Ryan >intended< to hand the House back to the Dems?

    13. ...that would be disloyalty right up there on his buddy Pierre Delecto's level...

    14. @Mark

      "sundance gets more ridiculous."

      Perhaps because, as I believe you yourself have suggested, sundance is more than one person?

    15. Quite possible. Do some searching on things like Paul Ryan + sabotage, etc.

  3. I don't find Sundance's reasoning persuasive. I seldom go to his site anymore, usually only if you are another respected source point out some of his work merits review.

    I don't know what his deal is. He seems to be running a con game, at times. Read my posts and be informed. When I do read his posts, it seems like it's a lot of bluster. I don't find a lot of meat to chew on.

    I think that Bill Barr is trying hard to clean up this mess. If time proves that I'm wrong, I'll be the first to say it. But I don't think that he can bring conspiracy charges for a massive, multiyear effort without expending time and resources. If charges flow, as I am expecting, I believe that Barr and Durham will have made sure all their ducks are in a row so that they have a high probability of convictions.

    Nor should Barr take Sundance's advice and bloviate on what he is doing. That's not the type of government that I want. I want a consistent application of the rule of law whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. If Barr acts just like Holder or Lynch, then we really are a banana republic.

    Barr's actions to-date, in my opinion, are aboveboard and beyond reproach. And Barr can't be held responsible for all the failures of the DOJ.

    There is undoubtedly a lot that Barr know that Sundance doesn't know. Maybe Wolfe cooperated and gave up a lot of evidence.

    One last point to Sundance. To not trust Barr is to not trust Trump. If Trump starts tweeting dissatisfaction with Barr, then I'll become alarmed. I can't guarantee that Barr is the real deal, but he's done nothing yet to undermine the confidence that I have in him.

    1. This: "He seems to be running a con game, at times."

    2. If CTH said the sun rose in the East, I'd buy a compass and binoculars to check it myself, before believing it.

      When I saw his unfounded and error-filled crap about Nellie Ohr using her Ham radio license to coordinate with Steele, I knew he was either an idiot, or worse. Under the adage that one should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, I assume he's just an another idiot trying con readers into giving his website more clicks. But, it could be worse than that.

      Since that time, I don't even bother giving CTH garbage any consideration at all; it isn't worth it, and no insider who has any brains would share their knowledge of what's going wrong with a mostly evidence-free web forum that discredits itself as often as CTH does.

    3. I pass this along because Kunstler is very often on the mark and what he says in this post lines up, I think, with views posted on this blog, yours and commentators.

      Kunstler is a Jeremiah, especially concerning the stock market, but he's nobody's fool. I believe he is decidedly to the left, but he has intellectual integrity. An irascible, honest man, an enemy of the people, in Ibsen's use of the term.

    4. Nice catch, Titan. I'll paste in a bit of that that emphasizes one of the points I keep returning to: the incredible complexity of it all.

    5. At one time JHK may've been "decidedly to the left" (esp. on environmental stuff), but since DJT emerged, JHK has been vociferously expressing his revulsion at Dem Resistance antics.

    6. The blog is really well done, and gives a hint at the awesome scope of the Octopus Barr is trying to subdue.

    7. Titan 28 is correct that James Howard Kunstler is a man of the Left, a Democrat through and through--someone I call today an Old Fashion Liberal, as contrasted with a Classic Liberal who are usually found on the Right. But he's someone who keeps, and has kept, his bearings.

      I've been reading him at ZeroHedge for a decade or so, he's a highly entertaining writer, with a gifted flair for prose. He does not suffer fools gladly.

  4. I wonder if Van Grack wants to give up on prosecuting Flynn. Van Grack might recognize that this prosecution is very bad for his own reputation and legacy.

    If so, then this situation reminds me of Rosenstein giving up on the RussiaGate hoax. Barr provided Rosenstein with an exit.

    Now Barr might be providing an exit likewise for Van Grack.

    1. Right now van Grack is still fighting an obvious exit, per his last filing. I'm very open to what you're saying about RR.

    2. Van Grack might feel professionally obligated to continue to prosecute Flynn. At this point, Van Grack cannot tell the judge blithely, "Oh, never mind."

      Maybe Van Grack has discussed this case in person with Barr, who is helping Van Grack make a graceful exit from this prosecution.

    3. Good point, Mike. A prosecutor isn't allowed to just walk away like that. If he tries saying "Oh, never mind" he's opening himself to very serious ethical and possible criminal problems. He's in a real dilemma.

  5. Mueller's work discredits itself, no help needed.

    Rob S

    1. Here's a little bit anyway...

      "In 2004, at the height of the 9/11 Commission hearings, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller — B.S. as he's better known to some — pushed for an independent intelligence unit within the FBI. The Commission asked why, in light of the shocking cost in human lives resulting from the FBI's failure, the bureau should be given another chance. Mueller argued: 'splitting the law enforcement and the intelligence functions would leave both agencies fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs.' He responded to concerns about the FBI's lack of counter-terrorism and intelligence capability by vowing that all future FBI agents would be trained in both.

      Fast-forward to 2011: "The FBI’s Inspection Division, a unit that scrutinizes bureau operations, conducted a three-week examination of the Directorate of Intelligence, a unit that Mueller had created to carry out the shift in preventing terrorism. 'They inspected it and they wrote the inspection report, and it said the whole thing’s broken — set it on fire and start from scratch,' said a former official familiar with the report. Another ex-official confirmed the account."

      And then there's the Madrid bombings case the FBI doesn't like brought up ever. Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were a match, insisted Mueller's FBI. No they're not, warned the Spanish national police. But, as usual, B.S. Mueller's FBI knew best. They put Mayfield under surveillance, monitored his communications, even broke into his home — all illegally, as it turned out. No, the Spanish had been right. B.S. Mueller's FBI ended up paying Mayfield over $5 million. Roughly the same amout they were ordered to pay Steven Hatfill for Mueller's massive Anthrax screw-up.

      Mueller's muckery is endless.

  6. Barr's unforced error was to go on ABC and play into the Dem/left's narrative (Barr's job is justice, Barr says Trump's tweets make it "impossible" to do his job, ergo, Trump's tweeting is obstructing justice). Even worse was a comment he made which I don't think ABC broadcast, (and which I only saw on CTH, by the way), that Barr thinks the Stone case was "a righteous prosecution" and that he was "happy to see him convicted." Those rather non-judicial comments are disturbing in that Barr seems not be bothered by the corrupt and maybe illegal predicate upon which CFH, Fisa and Meuller SCO were all based, thus making the inquiry of Stone (including the intimidating SWAT raid, which Barr failed to denounce or hold anyone accountable)fruit of a poisoned tree.
    If Barr really is going to clean the Augean stables at DOJ, and if he can't talk publicly about what he and Durham are (supposedly)doing, then he needs to be more careful when he does talk publicly. Whatever your theories about who is "behind" Sundance & CTH, his suspicions are reasonable and will only be disproved by actual deeds(facts) by Barr & Durham...and time is running out.

    1. I agree, Kameron. I'm not trying to defend every decision Barr makes. In particular, I do think he should have thought twice before coming out with that "impossible" statement. I'm sure a guy as smart as he is could have come up with a better way of saying what he may have needed to say. We can all appreciate that he wants to differentiate himself from the Holder/POTUS' Wingman view of the AG position, and that he wants to avoid jury pool problems, but as Adam Mill is quoted in another post, the POTUS really does have a right and a duty to involve himself--especially when it's all an abuse. That needs to be recognized as a serious constitutional fact. I also agree that his comments re Stone were best left unspoken.

      However, I disagree with your second paragraph. Check out my update if you don't buy the original version. I say it's patently unreasonable to expect mass indictments after less than a year of truly active investigation, and piecemeal indictments in this complex matter would almost certainly be a big mistake from a prosecutorial standpoint. That's an aspect that has been discussed here repeatedly. For all those reasons, I say sundance's suspicions are very unreasonable, whereas Weissmann's suspicions are well grounded in articulable facts and are therefore quite reasonable.

    2. The Barr/Trump kerfuffle was a minor speed bump along the way.

      I'd pay more attention to who hates Trump and Barr. In my opinion, all the right bad guys dislike them.

      I agree with the first commenter's (anonymous) statement that charges are coming soon. I base this on a hunch, which I acknowledge, isn't necessarily something to go on. Besides a hunch, the increasing stridency towards Barr, coupled with comments by Joe DiGenova.

      Like Mr. Wauck and Lou Dobbs, I occasionally have my dark moments of the soul if I'm kidding myself. But a thousand little factoids add up in my mind to a tidal wave of justice coming at the Dems/Deep State/Fake News.

    3. Who hates whom is a good start for many of these controversies.

  7. In 2016 the ramblings at theconservativetreehouse gave me hope, and prompted me to do my own analysis of the historical polling data, which convinced me 100% Trump would win. It was obvious. No doubt.

    Now, I just speed-read the mini-mystery rantings there, but I trust the motives of Sundance/theconservativetreehouse, because –

    Traffic to (ranking 26637) is referred mostly by (ranking 68489) & (ranking 66365). (These website stats come from is Tom Fitton, who is a loveable bulldog, disgusted with DoJ prosecutorial misconduct (as he recently expressed with Lou Dobbs). He's constantly suing the DoJ to expose corrupt behavior in the gov.

    If Tom Fitton is comfortable linking to Sundance/theconservativetreehouse, that’s good enough for me.

    1. I linked the Dobbs/Fitton interview the other night because it expressed my own frustrations. However, I need to say that Fitton does also engage in puffery of supposed 'developments' that aren't really, or are not nearly as significant as he claims. That said, he provides an indispensable service and I definitely wish him continued success.

    2. Hear, hear! Now get out of my head, Mark!

  8. So if we are to believe Weissman, they are just starting an investigation of Comey, McCabe and Strzok? That doesn't sound particularly encouraging. It makes it seem like there is a lot of BS being thrown around and I can't personally discern who is throwing it (Sundance?Wauck?Barr?Graham? you get what I mean here?). That is why indictments and arrests are necessary. We have waited and followed the facts for a long long long time. Nothing but BS so far.

    1. Yes, of course Weissmann is an accomplished BSer. And I think he knows--as any informed reader knows--that in fact the investigations into other aspects of Comey, McCabe, and Strzok have been well under way for months. The reason that Jensen was brought in was probably because Durham believes indictments of some of the higher echelons at the FBI have become feasible in the relatively near future (a few months). Durham is managing all the investigations 1-8, and can't possibly be taking time off to prepare cases for trial himself. Therefore, selected prosecutors are being brought in.

      We have NOT "waited and followed the facts for a long long long time." One year is not that long in a case or complex of cases of this magnitude. To suggest that all that has been learned--and it's a lot, more than most of us have been able to fully digest--is "nothing but BS" is totally unwarranted.

    2. More fuel to the fire, that had slipped my mind. In addition to Jensen, Barr has another USA working Ukraine matters. Again, to take some of the growing burden off Durham:

      "Last week, Barr confirmed that the Justice Department was reviewing information about Ukraine coming to the agency from the president’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and others. Barr has tapped U.S. Attorney Scott Brady from Pittsburgh to handle the Ukraine information, Fox News has learned."

      This is not the action of an AG who is presiding over a coverup. The very notion is absurd.

  9. CTH I have wondered about who is behind it. It has been more good information, than not. I agree on the Ham Radio Ohr, that was strange. I have seen it ahead of the curve on many issues.

    Barr I am hoping he will deliver. I can see he is making progress, and I hope he gets indictments and perp walks, or at a minimum a HUGE amount of sunshine to clean out the the cesspool of anti Trump activities. I agree with Mark's comment about policy being personnel, and I am not seeing that. My fear is what happened will just be papered over, but I hope I am wrong.

    There is so much corruption, bias, or just plain hatred against Trumps agenda I'm amazed Trump is managing to get anything done.

    The lack of anything from the John Huber Clinton investigation does not give me a lot of hope. I see a lot of covering up of stuff, such as Wolfe, Aswan Brothers, Clinton Emails that if Trump supporters had done, they would have been crucified for. The two tracks of justice, one for Trump Supporters, and another for the anointed still shocks me. The SWAT Raid on Stone was something I would never have imagined happening in the USA, but similar type things happened in Wisconsin with little to no repercussions.

    1. Ray, I'll admit to moments of doubt, but thus far those moments have all been overcome by fresh developments/revelations.

      Re your last paragraph, a clear distinction must be drawn between Before Barr and After Barr.

  10. Sundance did an awful lot of good work on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case and I respect him for that.

    I've said before in this comments section that he's done a lot of good work on the RussiaHoax and I appreciate it.

    But there's just something about his behavior for the last year, or so. As I've said before, he's had public dustups with Jeff Carlson, Tracy Beanz, Dan Bongino and others. This is only conjecture on my part but I wonder if it's jealousy because he was one of the first names to break a lot of this traitorous behavior. When others came after him, especially like Jeff Carlson, and did good work, something seemed to change about him.

    Again, just a guess, but there's a bee in his bonnet.

    And welcome to CTH readers who have commented here today for the first time.

    P.S. I also appreciate the work of Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch.

    1. I also followed him very closely on the Zimmerman case, nor do I gainsay him the useful material he's provided re the Russia Hoax. It's the more recent stuff.

  11. Here is a Politico article admitting that the DOJ wasn't always "independent."

    1. But the article is extaordinarily dishonest.

    2. He said that: "Here is a Politico article."

  12. Speaking of other investigations, the big one is still in the shadows and Barr is keeping it very close. National security was compromised for profit during the prior Administration. Now that is an investigation worth worrying about bigly.

    1. Hafta laugh. CTH has a new post saying that WaPo is terrified of where Durham is going with his investigation. But no mention of Barr. We're supposed to believe that WaPo is terrified of the investigation Barr is trying to cover up?

  13. OFf topic but worth of review:


    FISC demanded a response from DOJ to account for the disposition and use of all intel collected illegally under the auspices of the court.

  14. I still have faith in Barr... but I have to wonder...
    what's happening with Huber and Clinton Fdn?

    From everything I've read and seen, it should have been a slam dunk to indict, but looks like another investigation bit the dust....

    1. Huber appears to have been a Sessions headfake to avoid action. I published an account recently of emails Tom Fitton obtained, showing Huber congratulating Rosenstein the day before SC Mueller was announced.

    2. And, for anyone who didn't already know it, the cover for that meet was Mueller interested in re-appointment as FBI director. In fact, it was for about-to-be-appointed Special Counsel Mueller to assess the target — despite FBI already knowing the Steele dossier was total garbage and having absolutely zero corroboration for any of the wholly fabricated allegations against the incoming POTUS.

    3. My guess is that the predication for this investigative action--because I believe that's exactly what it was--was the McCabe "obstruction" investigation that had been opened on Trump. You can't do investigation without an open case. My bet is that Durham is or has been taking a very close look at all of that. Barr has as much as said so--we've been told flat out that Durham's investigation extends beyond the inauguration, and Team Mueller is involved simply because of the final FISA renewal--which was "illegal" in Chris Wray's own words. That means Team Mueller--its actions and its personnel--are under a microscope, and the guy looking through the scope is John Durham.

    4. The arrogance of a subordinate thinking that he is superior to the President; that's what gets me steamed.

      If the President is corrupt, that might be one thing. This man was a target before he won the election, after he won the election but only President-elect and, then, one he was inaugurated.

      I thank God that he has the support of the people, because if he didn't, the spineless species known as Republican elected officials, would have left him to twist in the wind.

      It's Trump, true-believing Rep senators and congressmen and patriot countrymen of all walks of life versus Dems, RINOs, the Deep State and the Fake News.

    5. "Huber appears to have been a Sessions headfake to avoid action"

      Yes, but why didn't Barr appoint someone to do a real investigation?
      If you look at what people like Charles Ortel have shown, and I listened to those two whistleblowers who testified at Congress last year, there's a mountain of evidence.

      I guess the Clintons are untouchable. If and when the "small group" is indicted, I doubt that will include the Clintons. Even though they are at the center of everything... everything starts with them.

    6. "why didn't Barr appoint someone to do a real investigation?"

      And you know that Barr has taken no steps in that regard? How do you know that? Because you didn't read it at CTH? Because Barr hasn't personally communicated with you about those matters?

      Three indisputable facts:

      In 11/17--arguably at the height of the Russia collusion hysteria--the NYT reported:

      Of 10 former attorneys general contacted Tuesday, only one responded to a question about what they would do in Mr. Sessions’s situation.

      Mr. Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. “To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,”

      If Barr was willing to go on record then, is there any reason to think he has changed his mind now? No.

      2. In June 2018 Barr wrote a 19 page memo challenging the entire anti-Trump legal establishment's views on Trump's actions, but especially RR, Mueller, and Weissmann.

      Is there any reason to think he has changed his views? No. But there is reason to believe that he is determined to root those views out of DoJ.

      3. Every investigative step Durham has taken has been approved by Barr. Every step Durham has taken has been an expansion of the investigation. Everyone with any experience knows that every expansion leads the investigators closer to the heart of it all, which is Clinton/Obama.

      Why else do you think the Left is so exercised? And you really expect Barr to be publicly telegraphing his every move with so much at stake?

    7. @Mark

      "...every expansion leads the investigators closer to the heart of it all, which is Clinton/Obama."


      Isn't that the bottom line?

      Bongino is saying that Obama's motivation to facilitate the Coup was, at bottom, fear of Flynn and Flynn's knowledge of the corruption of the Obama Administration.

      In Clinton's case it was probably the corruption of the Clinton Foundation. With no Clinton Foundation there is probably no private server and no deletion of 30,000 emails or any bleachbit.

      There is undoubtedly much more to hide.

      So they joined together to destroy Trump to prevent the discovery of their corruption. Because they know she will win, they do not fear discovery and they get sloppy.

      The sloppiness (Weiner's laptop, for example) increases Trump's odds. So they double down again.

      Big mistake. As the doubled down cover up always is.

      Trump wins the election.

      Obama and Clinton commit what are probably the biggest series of doubled down on top of doubled down mistakes in the political history of this country.

      I'm as impatient as any of us, but isn't it now just a matter of time?

    8. Bongino makes sense. I keep going back to what I was told several years ago, that Dem internal polling told them that Trump was a real threat to win. That would've triggered the efforts to nobble him.

  15. Just want to say that while disagreements about the bona fides of sundance and Barr may be validly predicated (if I can use the word) they are not helpful overall to the critically important goal of exposing the conspirators and restoring integrity to our government institutions.

    Any kind of discord is helpful to the Democrats, however.

    1. Are you really putting Barr and sundance on the same level of importance when it comes to "exposing the conspirators and restoring integrity to our government institutions"? Barr does have an actual official function in the quest for accountability. Suggesting that he's using that position to thwart accountability is a serious charge that needs to be confronted if it appears baseless on its face. I agree that discord is helpful to the Dems. Those who create that discord recklessly need to be held accountable. There's no doubt that there has been treachery within the GOP, but that Barr is pursuing an agenda apart from Trump is a baseless assertion. The evidence of his past, of his legal-philosophical convictions, and of his current actions are all consistent with an intent to protect the office of the presidency and its current incumbent. What can we say about sundance?

  16. Maybe not the same level of importance, but both have consequences.

    I'm not saying that there can't be a rational discussion about sundance... and Barr's... motives, agenda, etc. And it may be that the motives or agenda of one or the other of them is not exactly what one of us might wish. But when the discussion moves from rational discussion to baseless vitriol or conspiracy theory, its the opponents who benefit. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps sundance should consider this.

    We have to remember what the real goal is here.

    I have a friend who is a rock-ribbed conservative who is constantly put off by Trump's 'flaws', which he finds disqualifying. I remind him not only of Trump's policy positions with which we agree but also of the absolutely unacceptable practical alternative to Trump. He still knocks Trump.

    We have to remember what the real goal is here.

    1. Cassander,

      30 years ago I never would have supported Trump. I was appalled by Clinton's behavior and, to be consistent, I should apply the same standards to Trump.

      But we've fallen so far and Trump is the man that we need at the moment.

      I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I respect your friend's perspective but I agree with you.

      Trump: Not the man I wanted. But the man I needed.

    2. @Joe

      To which I hope all of sundance, Barr, Mark, Mark's circle of commenters, as well as you and I, all agree.

  17. Cassander: your point is well worth making. Every single day Trump says or does something that completely exasperates me. I read a few chapters in the tell all penned by Anonymous. Truth is, much of what he complains about in re Trump I complain about. We, those of us who see Anonymous as a swine, must look beyond DJT's appalling characteristics, and they are legion.

    The 46 word vocabulary, the thin-skin, the pettiness, the self-absorption, the lack of impulse control. I see why this, in conjunction with other detriments, make some voters anti-Trump down to their genome.

    But the alternative. The alternative is collapse. I'm not so sure the war isn't already over. All in all, the worst of the lot are the Never Trumpers, people like Romney and Sasse. With friends like these...

    The Lord has chosen a curious vessel in DJT. And like it or not, he is all that stands between us and the deluge.

  18. Barr has way too much on his plate to be distracted by the ruminations at CTH, whose value is primarily internet-based education and speculation. And some of his reporting is about cathartic venting more so than erudite analysis.

    In the fullness of time, the whole story of the expansiveness of the corruption and criminality of the Obama Administration will be revealed, and it will necessarily be an encyclopedia in size. No AG has ever faced this much criminality and conspiracy before, and the coming battles will be epic.

    1. A good bit of that corruption and criminality yet to be fully exposed relates to Obama's "signature achievement," the JCPOA. Or, as it's more commonly known, "the Iran deal".

  19. In my opinion, Barr likely came out of retirement to become AG for one of the following reasons:

    1. Repair the DoJ because he loves his country
    2. Repair the DoJ because he loves his DoJ
    3. Some combination of 1 and 2

    Like anyone, Barr's actions reveal his motives. While there is compelling evidence Barr is doing this for love of country, his failure to pursue charges against McCabe is a very damning setback for this theory.

    When trying to correct a corrupt DoJ, I don't see how looking the other way on well-documented crimes committed by a top-ranking FBI executive serves that end at all. In his official capacity as Deputy Director of the FBI, the OIG found McCabe lied a total of 4 times to federal investigators -- 3 times under oath. While McCabe was rightly fired for this, he should have been charged for lying to federal investigators, like Flynn was. For comparison, Flynn did not work for the FBI and did not lie, yet he was prosecuted aggressively.

    Maybe the stuff Barr and Durham are cooking up will make us all forget about this within the next few months. Until then, Barr is skating on thin ice. With little time left before November, the prospect for true justice and reform ahead of the election seems very unlikely. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    If the corruption is not sufficiently exposed and Trump and Republicans lose this November, Barr will be removed from office along with any ideas about justice and reform.

    1. I think you're right as far as you go, but there's more to it. Pls read my long comment above (only a minute or two ago):

      Two more links to this blog:

      Now re Flynn v. McCabe.

      I agree totally re Flynn and have written about it at great length--cf. additional link below. I agree that any untruths spoken by Flynn were unintentional and harmless, whereas the clear untruths McCabe spoke were intentional. McCabe deserved his firing for that.

      Is Barr simply turning a blind eye to McCabe's lies. My view is that Barr wants to move DoJ away from the use of 18 USC 1001 in these situations, for complex reasons (again cf. link). I believe he distinguishes false statement cases like the McCabe leak investigation from false statement cases like the FISA abuse. I expect Barr will hammer McCabe for his role in submitting false statements (whatever statute is used) to the FISC.

      Such a position is IMO principled. The current use of 1001 is regularly abused and should be deprecated, and to do that it must be deprecated even with defendants who "deserve" it. I've written about all this at length. Here's a link for more on 1001:

      Beyond all that, please give the overheated anti-Barr rhetoric a rest. He's doing all he can in difficult circs.

    2. "He's doing all he can in difficult circs."

      I'd like to think so and haven't given up on Barr despite how bad it looks to not prosecute McCabe. Barr may have his reasons and those following this will, now, have their reasons to be suspicious.

      Even if Barr had all the best intentions going into this, is it not possible a Deep State could exert pressure on him and his family to change his mind? Everybody has a breaking point.

      Given the pervasive corruption Obama left behind, I don't think we can be too careful in who we trust going forward.

      "Beyond all that, please give the overheated anti-Barr rhetoric a rest."

      I thought my rhetoric was actually quite reserved given the circumstances. I think it's been prudent to give Barr the room/support he needs to this point. However, he should be held accountable for his actions and not be supported blindly as we move through the process.

  20. Anonymous1776,

    I counsel patience. And I agree with Mr. Wauck about 18 USC 1001. As we have seen, this lends itself to a 'gotcha' trap. Barr doesn't a vindictive DOJ.
    About the disparities between Flynn and McCabe, I agree. We all do. Most conservatives are squawking about a two-tiered application of justice. Barr doesn't want to go there and do this to McCabe. I'm sure that the difficulty in proving attempt is probably a mitigating factor.

    If we could go back in time and change the past, Barr wouldn't have knowingly let Strozk and Pientka set Flynn up. If they were set up, he wouldn't let charges be filed (assuming that he has the ability to veto the local USA).

    If we want to end corruption, we shouldn't support 'our side' doing the things we don't like.

    You may be right and nothing comes of this. I don't have a crystal ball. But if you reflect on his words and actions and upon the reaction of the Dems/Deep State/Fake News, it's not unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    Again, this is complex stuff. None of us know what Barr and Durham know. There were Deep State lawyers helping plot this and doing their best to hide behind statutes and regulations, as in, pushing the envelope. If Trump hadn't been elected, we would probably never know this stuff. I'm going to paraphrase John Lennon here, all I am saying is give Barr a chance.

    1. Well said. Trump is visibly & vocally bulldozing the entire established "world order" for the benefit of middle-class Americans. Barr is silently bulldozing the established DoJ corruptocracy (judging by the attacks on him).

      The 24x7 attacks on Trump & Barr are in response to them actually doing what conservatives want done.

      The timid support for Trump & Barr from so-called conservatives are Exhibit #1 for why our society has become so rotten the last 30 years. This is the fight we've been hoping for! These guys are fighting! For us. And what are we doing to help them?

    2. "If we want to end corruption, we shouldn't support 'our side' doing the things we don't like."

      The malicious, unjustified prosecution of Flynn is not comparable to what would have been a completely justified prosecution of McCabe. The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying, while the OIG thought McCabe lied 4 times (3 times under oath). It seems there was plenty of real meat to go after in the McCabe case, while the Flynn case amounted to a political prosecution. Not to mention the higher standard an FBI agent/executive should be held to.

      Barr needs to advocate for repeal of the law if he thinks it should no longer be enforced.

      "But if you reflect on his words and actions and upon the reaction of the Dems/Deep State/Fake News, it's not unreasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt."

      Despite not prosecuting McCabe, I still do, for now. However, I don't take this McCabe episode as a good sign.

    3. "Barr needs to advocate for repeal of the law if he thinks it should no longer be enforced."

      No, that's not the point. It's not that the law should no longer be enforced, period, but that reasonable standards for its enforcement should be applied.

    4. "No, that's not the point. It's not that the law should no longer be enforced, period, but that reasonable standards for its enforcement should be applied."

      Then, maybe the law should be changed to reflect those "reasonable standards". Personally, I think it should just be repealed rather than rehabilitated. It's not possible for the government to tell the difference between a false memory/misinterpretation and a lie.

      It's also not compatible with freedom and free societies. I believe the First Amendment protects our freedom of speech, including the freedom to make false statements to our government.

    5. So you're OK with false statements on financial documents and so forth? First amendment and all that jazz?

    6. I have no problem with laws protecting against fraud in specific circumstances. Protecting our freedoms is one of the few necessary functions of government. However, we don't need unnecessarily broad laws that limit free speech simply because we're speaking to the government. The long history of abuse/misuse should be our guide here.

      In this case, it seems the original intent of the law was to protect against fraud. It's my understanding that the law was expanded in 1934 by removing the "intent to defraud" requirement. I'd probably favor returning to the previous version of the law that required an intent to defraud.

    7. Actually, Congress expanded the intended use of the law and a SCOTUS led by Scalia went along with that--over the misgivings of RBG! This is of a piece with Angelo Codevilla's criticism of Scalia's attitude toward FISA, which amounted to: Sure it's unconstitutional, but it probably won't do much harm. I've written a lot on this; try my links, try searching.

  21. "No, that's not the point. It's not that the law should no longer be enforced, period, but that reasonable standards for its enforcement should be applied."

    That's exactly the point that I was trying to make, and also, that Barr didn't think they could prove intent.

    Yes, the Flynn case was malicious and unjustified. Yes, McCabe is a cretin. But don't charge the man just to charge him, if Barr thinks they can't secure a conviction. Anonymous is right that McCabe deliberately lied. Still, don't pervert the rule of law.

    That's another point I was trying to make.

  22. Mark, you wrote:

    “Why else do you think the Left is so exercised? And you really expect Barr to be publicly telegraphing his every move with so much at stake?”

    This impatience to know (not need to know) is driving much of the Barr bad-mouthing (although the same people slam Lindsey Graham for “all talk, no action”). People sit at their laptops, day after day, feeling impotent and all stirred up - wanting SOMETHING to happen…wanting to KNOW something. I don’t believe a great deal of thought goes into it. Just emotion. These complainers want to know what’s on the last page of the book. And they want it yesterday. Otherwise it’s all a hoax. And Barr is a flake. And some go further and label PDJT a flake because he puts up with Barr. And on and on and on.

    They would characterize me as a dupe because I really do believe that Barr and Durham have at least a general strategy for how this is going to eventually play out. And how the indictment processes for various groups will be sequenced. And I don’t see the Clintons’ uranium deal (and they were both involved in it) going missing.

    I am feeling very patient these days. And there’s no emotion involved.

    I believe we’ll even hear from Huber in due course. When it is appropriate to the sequencing of the rest of this massive investigation. Comparing it to an octopus (I say a giant squid) is probably fairly apt.

    1. Speaking of impatience, True Pundit has a story on "FEDS Fume About NO Grand Jury in Durham’s FBI Abuse Probe".

      How long should it take Durham to get a G.J. to bring charges, in such cases as these?
      If he needs only weeks, it would be premature to convene a G.J., seeing as Barr has talked about a target of late Spring.

    2. Getting a GJ to return indictments doesn't have to take a long time. However, you need a GJ to get non-government records--banks, telecom, etc. The IG will have already pulled together vast amounts of government records--government email, text, phone accounts, etc. I read a long time ago that Durham in fact has two GJs going, one in CT and one in DC.

    3. Durham will also have access without subpoenas to all government files. Again, vast amount of documentation. CHS files, investigative files, financial files.

  23. Who knew fighting back is a flaw.

    George W Bush refused to fight back. He allowed the Democrats to malign and define his administration.

    Heck, the Democrats tried to impeach W a couple times.

    Pelosi, foreshadowing her current actions at first stated all talk about impeaching W was off the table, but that she would be for it if she was not in a leadership position. Biden stated we would advocate impeaching W if he bombed Iran without Congressional approval.

    Yes, Reagan had a bill for impeachment proposed over Iran-Contra. A special prosecutor was appointed.

    George HW Bush twice had articles of impeachment brought up.

    It's not just Republicans, though. Republicans also tried to abuse this process for political reasons with Andrew Johnson as case in point.

    Back to topic, we really do not know what Barr's intentions are. We can infer positively from his public statements almost exclusively save for the most recent. We cam infer from what scant actions we know of.

    While I am very cynical in this, I am willing to play it out because the other choices are bad to horrific.

    1. "...we really do not know what Barr's intentions are."
      This is true. Nor are we privy to his agenda/motivation.

      "Who knows the heart of another man."

      Many remember Bill Barr's part in Ruby Ridge. That places a huge question mark beside his name.

      18 USC 1001, as nearly as I can ascertain, did not exist prior to 1948, yet the Republic endured. It apparently was passed as a remedy against Communist infiltration, shutting the barndoor long after the horse was gone. Barr has not recommended its repeal so I suppose he wants to hold it as a tool for future use. Is this a good tool, or a less than good tool for political entities to hold. My guide is literature and for this I look to Sophocles' "Antigone".
      Tom S.

    2. Read my links, though. Scalia was one who approved putting 1001 on steroids. Something needs to be done.

    3. As long as I have been politically aware, conservatives have argued from their pro-law enforcement viewpoint to expand the legal toolkit. And they were usually opposed by liberals whose stated concern was individual privacy.

      I think this episode, along with the rising tide of lawfare and prosecutorial abuse, has to be considered as a wake-up and mea culpa for conservatives.

      Perhaps we deluded ourselves into thinking statutes such as 18 USC 1001 would only be used against criminals.

      If that was the case, then we forgot the core lesson of the constitution and Bill of rights. The founders' design flowed from the conviction that human corruption could best be stemmed by dividing the power to govern.

      Since resisting corruption lay at the heart of the constitution's design, any proposed legislation should not merely be weighed against specific articles for their constitutionality. It should also be evaluated against its fitness or liability to prevent or expand corruption.

      I find myself wishing that the founders had elaborated a bit more. (And I mean within the constitution; as useful as the federalist papers are, they are not the constitution.) But, then, recall that they didn't think the Bill of Rights was necessary at first, because they couldn't conceive that people, once franchised, would actually vote away their liberties. Fortunately they didn't have many blind spots, but this was one of them.

    4. Yes, mister.

      Ruby Ridge ... one of the two main reasons for the Oklahoma bombing by what I would consider a payriot till that point.

      Is this just too far gone to correct?

    5. There's no question but that Ruby Ridge is a major blot on the FBI--and on Barr: