Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Barr Stirs The Russia Hoax Pot

In an interview with Fox News AG Barr sketched out the overall case against the Deep State, with special emphasis on the role of the FBI. That's understandable because, even if the CIA's Brennan was the mastermind, it couldn't have happened without a complicit FBI. As he has in the past, Barr separated out two moments of the big picture conspiracy: before and after the election:

“I think before the election, I think we were concerned about the motive force behind the very aggressive investigation that was launched into the Trump campaign without — you know, with a very thin, slender reed as a basis for it,” [i.e., "inadequate predication"] Barr said in the two-part interview. The second part will air Tuesday at 6 p.m. EDT on Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier.” 

Notice that Barr draws attention to the "motive force" behind the "inadequately predicated" investigation. That points directly at the big picture conspiracy: use of facially legal means--the FBI's investigative powers--but with the motive or intent to misuse those powers. "Motive force" surely points to taking those actions knowingly, to defraud the government of the honest services of its agencies.

“It seemed that the bureau was sort of spring-loaded at the end of July to drive in there and investigate a campaign,” Barr added. 

Again, the FBI is not supposed to be "spring-loaded" to do anything. It's actions are supposed to be predicated on specific and articulable facts. Not made up stuff.

Barr went on to say that “there really wasn't much there to do that on, and that became more and more evident as they went by, but they seemed to have ignored all the exculpatory evidence that was building up and continued pell-mell to push it forward.”

The attorney general said that effort remained intense following Trump’s election, even as –­ he said –­ it became "painfully obvious" there was little basis
“The other area of concern is that after the election, even though they were closing down, some of it as we've seen in the [Michael] Flynn case and say there's nothing here, for some reason they went right back at it, even at a time where the evidentiary support or claimed support, like the dossier, was falling apart,” Barr said, referencing the dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele as part of Democratic opposition research. 

Again, Barr sketches out the conspiratorial mindset: They know there's nothing there, but for some reason they double down. "For some reason." In other words, not simple inertia or laziness. They had a reason for doing what they did--even though they had not basis in law for doing it. That also points toward a conspiracy.

“And it's — it's very hard to understand why they continued to push and even make public in testimony that they had an investigation going, when it was becoming painfully obvious, or should have been obvious to anyone, that there was nothing there,” he continued.

The question of when senior FBI officials knew about the weaknesses of the dossier has been a focus of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, who has been investigating the Russia probe’s origins. On Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” this past weekend, Graham pointed to how Steele’s sub-source had said during an FBI interview that the dossier was not accurate, even though it ended up being used to support a warrant application to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.  
“I believe it goes to the very top, and I’m going to get to the bottom of it and that means Sally Yates and Rosenstein, and McCabe and Comey are all going to come before the committee and they’re going to be asked, ‘What did you know and when did you know it?’” Graham said.

I suspect that Graham is acting in cooperation with Barr. When Graham said that certain FBI officials are not being made available to him, I suspect that means that Barr is concerned that Senate testimony by those individuals--whether as targets or as cooperating--could interfere with Durham's investigation.


  1. Does this mean that Lindsey actually serves a purpose? Even Fox News has noticed that Lindsey always talks up a storm on TV and does nothing.

  2. They doubled down because they believed there was a chance they could remove Trump, i.e., decline inauguration, or eventually resign. Media (NYT, WaPo, etc.) convinced Deep State and Obama holdovers to keep leaking in order to create a groundswell acclaim that resulted in Trump's departure--one way or another. In other words, they believed their 5h!t didn't stink.

    (Media had no memory of the 68 newspapers who demanded Clinton's resignation after the Monica Lewinsky lies. Demands that went nowhere.)

    Susan Rice delayed writing her CYA memo to file, for two weeks after the Jan 5 WH meeting--because she believed there was a chance she wouldn't have to write it.

    Comey disclosed the pee-tape to Trump because he knew that would finally release the media to report on the Steele dossier--because then it was "news." Prior thereto, media didn't report because it was unsubstantiated. Media actually used higher standards than the FBI--who were using it, as unsubstantiated.

    After that--Mueller SCO indictments, Flynn prosecution, were sand in the gears, distractions, hoax cover-up, anything to handcuff Trump, figuratively or literally. An attempt to overturn the election by any means necessary by those likeminded who agreed with the unspoken agenda.

    They believed the NKVD's Lavrentiy Beria's witticism, "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime," was operative.

    As Trump wasn't a DC political animal, what they apparently uncovered was the least compromised, least corrupt man in Washington--the rarest of species in DC.

    1. I believe that's absolutely correct--they really thought they might be able to prevent inauguration.

  3. In mid-August 2016, anti-Trump top officials in our Intelligence Community were discussing the need for "an insurance policy" to deal with the possibility that Trump might win the election.

    If Trump won by a small margin in the Electoral College, then the necessary number of Electoral College voters might be convinced that they should vote against Trump because he won the Presidential election only because of help from Russian Intelligence.

    If a group of top Intelligence officials -- Comey, Clapper and Brennan -- asserted that Intelligence finding, then perhaps Trump might be defeated in the Electoral College vote after all.

    However, Trump's margin in the Electoral College was too large for this "insurance policy" to work effectively.

    Therefore, during November and December 2016 and January 2017, the "insurance policy" evolved into a scheme to remove Trump after the Inauguration. The top Intelligence officials would leak that Trump had collaborated with Russian Intelligence and was obstructing an investigation of such collaboration. Thus, President Trump would be impeached and removed from office for obstruction justice.

    1. Hence, Comey's decision to come clean with Weiner's laptop a week before the election to do whatever he could to help HRC.

  4. I've been having to delete a lot of spam today, and I accidentally just deleted comments from Boarwild and Cassander. They only way I've figured to recover those comments is by copying and pasting, but I have to do that under my own name. So that's what will follow.

  5. Boarwild has left a new comment on your post "Barr Stirs The Russia Hoax Pot":

    Mr Wauck -

    Don Surber is more pessimistic:

    “ Obamagate is the bag of granny's used diapers that everyone smells and everyone wants to go away. No one in Washington is interested in bringing the Department of Justice to justice, much less call out our first black president for being a wannabe Stalin.

    House Intelligence Committee Republicans -- who did nothing when they controlled the committee -- are being very loud about preparing to make referrals. Eight referrals were finally made a while ago.

    This is all for show.

    Who has John "Bull" Durham indicted? The old Bull has been on the job for more than a year with nothing to show for it. No indictments, no excitement.

    Obama had the FBI lie to spy on a political opponent and after 13 months, the old Bull has not found even a lying-to-the-FBI charge?

    ‘ It took Obama one month to entrap and lock General Flynn out of the Trump administration.

    ‘What has the old Bull done besides scowl and look menacing at the cameras?“

    It is - in a word - depressing.

    1. I'm a big fan of Surber, but not of these types of comments that he makes every other week or so. These comments by Surber are simply ignorant. Of COURSE it's easier to frame someone than it is to build a legal case. Nor is it true that Nunes did nothing while he controlled the committee. The problem was Paul Ryan. Nunes didn't control the entire process.

  6. Cassander has left a new comment on your post "Shipwreckedcrew On DoJ's Flynn Brief Part 1":

    Slightly off thread, but

    The continuing efforts of the Resistance to bend our country to their progressive (and authoritarian) goals will ultimately backfire, regardless of short-term successes.

    If the Left succeeds in reducing the effectiveness or authority of police powers in a particular location, law-abiding, crime will rise and peace-loving citizens will simply leave and move to locations where the police have sufficient authority to maintain peace and law and order. The result?

    If the Left succeeds in reversing decades of due process protections to allow women to prevail in workplace sexual harassment and abuse cases, the inevitable result will be fewer women in sensitive (and remunerative) positions in the workplace.

    If the Left succeeds in raising taxes in Blue states to provide transfer (welfare) payments deemed by taxpayers to be excessive and detrimental, taxpayers will leave and move to other states, reducing the tax base and the availability of revenue sources for transfer payments.

    If the Deep State succeeds in destroying the Trump presidency through illegitimate means...

    1. Woops, I pasted on the wrong post.

    2. If the Deep State succeeds in destroying the Trump presidency through illegitimate means, or gets Biden elected, huge segments of "red" Americas will start Divorce proceedings, rather than just sit and await their extinction by the new Admin.

    3. I agree that there are enough Americans left that they won't sit around and await their fate under Antifa.

    4. For a detailed analysis of military aspects of this, see K. Schlichter, at .

    5. @Mouse, I happen to agree with your view that Divorce is in our future.

      I appreciate Schlichter's civil war II analysis, but win or lose, I believe that the only way we can stay united is if one side dominates the other.

      I think the institutional damage is irreversible, and I don't think blue America will shake the Marx bug until they've had a good run with it. In my view, Trump's purpose has been to serve as a wake-up call to those of us who bandied about terms like Deep State and Media Bias without fully appreciating the sinister import of this reality.

      I wonder what it will there enough popular will in any given state to lead a sober exit towards sanity before things get bloody?

      I enjoy Schlichter's novels. But I think the red states would struggle quite a bit, too.

    6. Yes, and that's why I keep talking about a Divorce, whereby DJT's next wall is built, to quarantine the bulk of the urban Northeast, and the Left Coast, from the rest of the U.S.

  7. Even at CTH, where suspicion of Lindsey is universal, some suspect that DJT is backing him because he now "owns" Lindsey.

  8. Your last paragraph is counter to Joe DiGenova's radio interview yesterday. He disagrees and says that Durham has no need for the additional 2 FBI guys. In time, we'll find out.

    1. I'll have to listen to that.

    2. I just listened. Joe sounds calm and assured of what he's saying. But he doesn't really explain.

      OTOH, Joe does agree with me on the unimpressive questioning of RR.

    3. Barr: "...people should not draw from the fact that no action has been taken yet that people are going to get away with wrongdoing."

    4. I have always enjoyed listening to DiGenova and Toentsing, but have also found that sometimes their “insider information” carries them away. Their hearts are in the right place. They have not always proved to be the accurate seers that they try to be. That said, it is possible that what they believe at any point is subject to change by persons/events beyond their control.

    5. LOL! That's very kind. It's true. They're very knowledgeable lawyers and that's mostly what I take seriously--when they deal with actual legal issues. Of course they are DC insiders, no doubt of that. But, yes, they do sometimes get carried away.

  9. "I suspect that Graham is acting in cooperation with Barr. When Graham said that certain FBI officials are not being made available to him, I suspect that means that Barr is concerned that Senate testimony by those individuals--whether as targets or as cooperating--could interfere with Durham's investigation."

    I agree. Fairly standard under the circumstances.

  10. I'm very suspicious of Senator Graham, he seems to blow a lot of smoke, but I am not seeing any fire. Using the issue the FBI is blocking him is a great excuse to avoid accountability.

    There is so much the Judicial Committe should be investigating, such as:

    - Aswan Brothers
    - James A. Wolfe Leaking (who authorized it), Senate Intel panel security director
    - Communication by Senator Warner with Russia Gate People
    - What did the Senate Intel Know, when, about RussiaGate
    - Anthony Weiner Laptop Contents
    - Hillary Emails - why is it taking so long to release. What happened to those on Emails on Weiner's Laptop
    - Antifa - who is supporting them? What is their international links?
    - FISA - What should be done to reform it?
    - Use of Plea Bargains to force confessions
    - Judicial, Propositional, etc. immunity
    - No Knock Raids

    1. Antifa began in Europe many years ago. It is said to be a loosely woven movement with no hierarchy. Cells or chapters, or whatever you’d call them, located in various parts of the world and across the United States. Financial support? I would put George Soros at the head of the list and the Tides Foundation. There have to be others.

      When I went looking for support for Antifa, search brought up something called the Action Network supports them and has joined with the DNC. There is no little bragging about that here:

      Action Network partners with the DNC to build sustainable technology infrastructure for progressives
      As movement’s programming moves to digital in response to COVID-19, Action Network and the DNC are working to ensure communications reach people’s inboxes quickly and effectively

      And there is the related Action Builder, tools for organizers. Apparently “sold” to union organizers:

      Adrian Sauceda, an international representative in the Membership Development Department at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), has been a part of the cooperative development team building Action Builder from Day One.

      Because they use the internet for organizing membership and support, much of what they do can be found by searching.

      There used to be an Antifa website that acted as a billboard for messages about their activities, both current and future. Intended to draw participants. I have not been able to find that...

    2. Here is their site now. An essay, produced in an ominous graphic style, on President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a terrorist organization.