I'll do this in a sort of impressionistic way--concentrating on overall impressions taken from the FD-302 of FBI Agent William Barnett. That "302" memorializes the interview of Barnett that was conducted by FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the handling of the Michael Flynn case.
First of all, imagine how Barnett felt going into this interview, and what the circumstances of the interview tell us.
Barnett, a law enforcement official of the federal government, had hired an attorney to be present with him at the interview--even though he was just a witness. He may have been just a witness, but he knew this was a high stakes interview and he couldn't simply trust to his own integrity.
He was interviewed by two FBI agents and two federal prosecutors--one of them Jeffrey Jensen, a USA who had also been an FBI agent. Barnett knew there'd be no BS-ing his way through this interview, and that this interview was supremely important from the government's standpoint.
Right at the start we learn something very important. Barnett had worked on both the Flynn and Manafort investigations. In fact, he was the case agent for both investigations at the FBI's Washington Field Office (WFO), having been specifically recruited to join the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) team by SSA Joe Pientka. He continued working those cases once Team Mueller was set up. That means that he would have interacted regularly with the prosecutors who led those investigations for Team Mueller. We learn later that Barnett is able to recall the attitudes and words of Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Weissmann, so it's a good guess that Durham/Jensen are very much interested in those two Team Mueller alumni.
As Barnett explained himself to USA Jensen, four years after the fact, his overall attitude toward the entire Russia Hoax/CH investigation was that it was "supposition on supposition" with little evidence of any criminal activity. Later Barnett draws a distinction between the Flynn and Manafort investigations. He believed that there was substance to the Manafort investigation but claims to have always doubted that there really was any logical predication for investigating Flynn. In that regard he mentions his doubts regarding two specific incidents that were cited as supporting predication to open a Full Investigation on Flynn: Flynn's speech in Moscow, and what we now know was the hoax regarding the supposed relationship between Flynn and Svetlana Lokhova. As it is, the interview appears to have focused largely on the Flynn ("RAZOR") case.
A major focus of the interview, unsurprisingly, was: just who was in charge? Who directed the investigation of Flynn (Manafort takes a back seat in this interview)? The answer, from Barnett's perspective, was that in the first stage of the investigation, from startup up to the decision to keep the Flynn case open was made on January 4, 2017, the person who ran the investigation was Peter Strzok. In other words, the Flynn case and CH generally, was operated mostly by a small cadre of FBIHQ managers. Not only did Strzok decide on the opening and closing of the Flynn case, but even routine investigative decisions such as whether to seek National Security Letters (NSL) were made by Strzok--without any explanation being offered to the case agent, Barnett. As Barnett puts it later in the interview, the Flynn case was run "top down."
The result was that very little real investigation of Flynn ever took place. Instead, the open case appeared to Barnett to be a sort of placeholder--a case without real predication that was being kept open "just in case". Just in case Flynn became a target of opportunity (as in fact happened) and the FBI could then say, Oh yeah, we've been investigating him as a foreign agent all along--to provide added credibility to the setup interview of Flynn.
That, of course, is not how investigations are supposed to be managed. In this regard, there are signs in the 302 that this write-up may be only one of several. For example, regarding the lack of predication and the lack of actual investigative activity, the 302 briefly notes that Barnett mentions a "very frank discussion" on that score with "Analyst 1." But no details. I suspect a more detailed account of that aspect exists.
This perspective on how the Flynn investigation was managed is important, because it narrows down USA Jensen's focus on the Flynn case. Presumably, Barnett's account will also be supported by or will confirm what Joe Pientka has already told investigators regarding who directed it all. This in turn will help Jensen to pin the decision on opening a basically unpredicated Full Investigation of Flynn on Strzok--and possibly others above Strzok.
Pientka's role in all this is interesting. That role is touched on twice. We've already pointed out that it was Pientka who recruited Barnett for the CH Team. It appears that Pientka was trusted by Strzok and worked closely with Strzok--for example, handing Ohr off to Pientka indicates a high degree of trust and confidence. So my guess is that Strzok instructed Pientka to recruit agents for the CH Team who could be relied upon to go along with the plan. From Barnett's account, it doesn't appear that great initiative was a requirement, since he emphasizes that his role--unlike what would usually be expected of a case agent--was basically to follow instructions and not ask questions.
I would anticipate that Pientka has been debriefed on his relationship with Strzok. Pientka, on the other hand, appears not to have been totally candid with Barnett. Barnett mentions that Pientka apologized for interviewing Flynn without informing Barnett, the case agent--offering a somewhat lame excuse to Barnett. In fact, we know that Pientka had probably been preparing for such an interview for months, since he was selected to give the National Security briefing to Trump and Flynn for that specific purpose--to assess Flynn for possible interview purposes. Barnett surmised in hindsight that he had been "cut out" of the interview, a fact that would be probative of a theory of prosecution that the Russia Hoax/CH investigation was in fact a closely guarded conspiracy, entry to the inner counsels of which was carefully restricted.
It was only after the Flynn interview that Pientka seems to have had serious doubts about what was going on, having realized that Flynn was an innocent man being targeted by Strzok and a small group at FBIHQ. It was at that point that Pientka tried to distance himself from the Russia Hoax, and that Strzok tried to insulate Pientka from further involvement. From that point of view, Barnett's corroboration of Pientka could be very useful at trial, and if Pientka can confirm that Barnett's surmise of being "cut out" of the interview is correct, that too would be very useful.
This, I believe, is the major takeaway from Barnett's account of the Flynn case up to the interview of Flynn. It appears that Jensen's focus for that period is twofold:
1) To confirm that there were significant doubts among the investigators and analysts that there was any real predication for investigating Flynn. If they had doubts, then their superiors running the investigation out of FBIHQ would have realized how baseless the case was. In that regard, Jensen questioned Barnett regarding his discussion of predication with disgraced former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith. Basically, Clinesmith confirmed to Barnett that there had been no additional predication for the Flynn investigation as of early 2017.
2) To confirm that the investigation--such as it was--was directed from the top down by Peter Strzok and a "small group" at FBIHQ.
Turning to Barnett's account of his time with Team Mueller, Jensen's focus again appears to be twofold.
On the one hand, Barnett offers a lot of anecdotal detail concerning a "get Trump" attitude on the part of the Team Mueller attorneys. The phrase alone "get Trump" is highly suggestive. While we all know that the whole purpose of Team Mueller was, in fact, to "get Trump," that was not the actual mandate of Team Mueller. The actual mandate was, at least for public consumption, to investigate "links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." But in Barnett's telling it was all about getting Trump--every person interviewed was pressed to incriminate Trump in some way, regardless of facts or evidence. In that regard, Barnett singles out such Team Mueller luminaries as Jeannie Rhee, Andrew Weissmann, and Andrew Goldstein as particularly rabid in their refusal to accept facts at face value.
An interesting but all too brief passage concerns Robert "Bob" Mueller, and highlights his Captain Ahab-like tendency to get fixated on erroneous theories of a case--a tendency that he has repeatedly exhibited throughout his career. Speaking of the attempt to prove some sort of "quid pro quo" in the Flynn - Kislyak phone calls that could also involve Trump, Barnett relates:
MUELLER described [KT] MCFARLAND as the "key to everything" because MCFARLAND was the link between TRUMP, who was at Mar-a-Lago with MCFARLAND, and FLYNN, who was in the Dominican Republic on vacation, when [REDACTED: calls?] were made.
MCFARLAND was interviewed on numerous occasions.
In other words, Mueller--and presumably the rest of his "all stars," had a conviction of Trump's guilt and a theory to match it, and couldn't let the facts get in the way. In the most benign interpretation, Mueller's conviction was based on the assumption that the communications between Flynn and Kislyak couldn't possibly have been normal course of business--collusion and a quid pro quo was a given. However, a less benign interpretation is possible, since Mueller and the entire Team Mueller had the transcripts of the phone calls.
That mentality led to interview tactics that Barnett considered questionable from an objective investigative standpoint. Barnett describes the numerous interviews of McFarland as being very "general," lacking in follow up questions. He attributes this tactic to a desire to elicit general responses that could be spun by Team Mueller for their desired ends. He describes that interview tactic also with regard to interviews--also numerous--of Michael Flynn. The picture we get is of prosecutors attempting to wear down people into saying things in a way that could be used against Trump.
This mentality on the part of Team Mueller also led to repetitive, obsessive going over the same ground in interviews, based on assumptions that had no solid basis--what Barnett described as "astro [sic: astral?] projection." It also led to wild goose chases for the elusive "quid pro quo" that consistently led to dead ends.
My references to "Team Mueller" in the foregoing account suggests the other major focus for Jensen. When I referred to "Team Mueller" it is very apparent from the 302 that it's the attorneys who took the lead in everything. The investigative agents were pretty much just along for the ride. Here's how Barnett describes it:
BARNETT said working with the SCO was a very unique environment for him. Typically investigators push for legal process and have to explain the need for the request to the attorneys. BARNETT said the SCO attorneys were pushing for legal process and just wanted investigators to sign affidavits they prepared. Everything was "green-lighted" by the SCO, i.e., you could get whatever legal process you wanted. BARNETT did not see the investigator/attorney relationship as 50/50. At the SCO, BARNETT believed the investigators were looked at as a "speed bump" to the attorneys who were leading the investigation. BARNETT said the investigators assigned to the [REDACTED] and RAZOR investigations were doing what they were assigned to do.
This topsy turvey management of the investigation takes on special significance when the choice of highly partisan attorneys for Team Mueller is taken into consideration. If the investigation is conducted by impartial investigators, it may not matter as much if the prosecutors are biased. However, if the prosecutors are highly biased and also--for most intents and purposes--conduct the investigation, then the entire investigation has to be considered suspect. It begins to look, in fact, like ... a Witchhunt.
The business about the attorneys simply presenting the agents with affidavits to sign is troubling, as well. In my experience, many agents were happy to let prosecutors prepare all affidavits--and the prosecutors felt the same way. They didn't trust most non-lawyer agents to get things right (I wrote my own affidavits and didn't trust the AUSAs). In those cases, however, the prosecutors were working off agent produced 302s that recorded investigation that the agents had conducted. Agents could question the use to which their own work product was put by the prosecutors--although, admittedly, that was unlikely to happen. In the case of Team Mueller, however, what we see are the prosecutors basically doing the investigation and then writing up affidavits in support of legal process which they presented to a judge as if they had been written by the agents. In other words, they were concealing who the real investigators were as well as playing fast and loose with probable cause ("green-lighted"). I'm not sure how far Jensen and Durham can go with this, but it's illustrative of real problems in the federal criminal justice system. It also illustrates how repugnant the idea of "special counsels" should be to any sense of justice and fair play.
However, what I see this aspect of the interview supporting is, once again, a prosecutive theory in which a small group of highly partisan actors misdirected government resources for a purely partisan political end that lacked any plausible predication. This could, with proper factual support, be argued to be part of a conspiracy to defraud the government of honest services--and possibly other violations, as well. If you look back at what Barnett is describing with regard to Team Mueller, you can see that at bottom the common denominator has to do with issues of basic honesty, i.e., fraud. That's something to keep in mind as we go forward.
Also keep in mind that Jensen and Durham have certainly interviewed Kevin Clinesmith in depth regarding all the issues raised by Barnett's interview(s). The Barnett interview--and probably interviews of other participants on Team Mueller--is likely to be just one part of the case that is being constructed. With what success, time will tell.
ADDENDUM: Commenter AmericanCardigan has provided a quote from Andrew Weissmann that offers a stunning illustration of what Team Mueller was actually all about:
Here's Mr. Wonderful's recent Political article from his recent book justifying his existence as the best prosecutor in the U.S. In his words "Barr’s letter (March 24, 2019) was a shot across the bow, signaling that the checking function Mueller provided on the actions of the president had come to an abrupt end." Weissmann's thinking here is that the SOC was intent on sticking around for the long haul to serve as a separate function to prepare to pounce on the Executive branch for the term. Unbelievable. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/25/andrew-weissmann-book-excerpt-special-counsel-421441
I think I know what the predication for an investigation is--or should be. But what would be the predication for a "checking function"?
An interesting related discovery:ReplyDelete
Look at the date for the "insurance policy" text message:
>> The text Strzok sent to Lisa Page on Aug. 15, 2016, read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's] office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” <<
And what happened on Aug 15, 2016?
Crossfire Razor was opened on Flynn.
(Officially, it was opened on the 16th, but IIRC it was green-lit" on the 15th, and thus was likely a topic of discussion in the meeting attended by Strzok/Page in McCabe's office.)
This is consistent with Barnett's account of virtually nothing going on in CR in September to November 2016; management was giving no direction to investigate anything, and wasn't approving NSLs that Barnett sought, and refused to allow him to interview Flynn. After the election, FBI management sudden got much more interested, most likely because Trump won the election, and now they needed to dust off the "insurance policy" investigation -- CR -- and see if they could find a way to frame Flynn for something. Even with that push, Barnett and the other agents/analysts could see any basis to continue, because there was no evidence Flynn committed any crime. Strzok even approved shutting it down at the end of December, but countermanded it when the Flynn/Kislyak phone call transcripts were discovered by CR, and somebody conjured up the laughable Logan Act angle to keep the investigation open even longer.
The never planned to use the Flynn investigation before the election because they knew there was no there there. It likely was opened to placate somebody high up in the WH, and was seen by Strzok and others prior to Trump's surprise election as merely an "insurance policy" investigation that could be dusted off and used to hobble the trump administration if the inconceivable were to happen, which it did. That's why there was no pressure from above to do much of anything before the election.
After the election everyone at the top of FBI and DOJ went into CYA mode, and CR took on a much greater importance in that regard.
Since the redactions occur in an interview of Barnett by Jensen and associates, one must assume the redactions relate to things they asked Barnett about, and thus were things he potentially had knowledge of.
Since Jensen's focus was the handling of the Flynn case, and most of Barnett's experience at FBI that overlaps Jensen's focus would also be the Flynn case, one might suspect the redactions, if related to sealed indictments, must be of people involved in the Flynn investigation and prosecution.
This also suggests the reason why Jensen was brought in by Barr: Barr/Durham became worried Sidney Powell's motions would lead to revealing exculpatory evidence that Durham was using to build cases against the people who were involved with charging Flynn and extracting his plea deal. The Jensen investigation plowed through the Flynn prosecution files, sorting it into exculpatory sensitive, and exculpatory non-sensitive bins, and saw to it the non-sensitive exculpatory material was provided by DOJ to Flynn's attorney, while holding onto the sensitive material Durham/Jensen were using to build cases against whomever broke laws in the Flynn prosecution.
It thus seems the "pending unsealing by Court" redactions indicate possible sealed indictments/plea deals of the people in SCO who tormented Flynn, and broke laws to do it.
And this release by Jensen/DOJ seems to suggest imminent unsealing of these matters.
This also explains why DOJ submitted a motion to drop the case, and based it on legal arguments (materiality of the putatively false statements by Flynn) that did not involve specific criminal acts by SCO prosecutors. If the motion to dismiss were based on specific prosecutorial mal-behavior, it could have required revealing evidence that Durham/Jensen needed to shield until they are ready to unseal the indictments/plea deals.
I have yet to see anyone address the "pending unsealing by Court" line. I haven't checked twitter as I've been writing all day, but I have checked articles.Delete
Super interesting, EZ. That they were just holding it open, just in case, makes perfect sense.Delete
What was Strzok's explanation to Congress about the "insurance policy"?Delete
He & Lisa Page said it was exposing a source, which I think is believed now to be Halper. Like with everything they say, they're never real clear about it & the idiot Republican questioners never try to nail them down to any specifics.Delete
But this link explains it all in a little more detail. There are certainly better links out there, but this is what I found in a hurry:
According to FBI notes summarizing the January 5th meeting, the person who conjured up the Logan Act was none other than Joe Biden.Delete
There is a page and a half in the DOJ filing that is fully redacted and labeled "Pending Unsealing by the Court."Delete
Is it not very likely that there is an atom bomb under that redaction that the DOJ is daring Sullivan to unseal? Sullivan's only path out is to dismiss the case and ignore the unsealing. I really want to know what it says.
Since Jensen's remit is specifically the Flynn matter, isn't it probable that Durham's end of things interviewed Bennett separately, for their more general investigation, and that this happened much earlier?ReplyDelete
All this is possible--we can only speculate. My understanding of the way Barr has handled this investigation is that he has given Durham relatively free rein within his remit, but if developments become more than one USA can logically handle he farms it out. Which, of course, strongly suggests that there HAVE been developments. Don't forget John Bash.Delete
"In other words, Mueller--and presumably the rest of his 'all stars,' had a conviction of Trump's guilt and a theory to match it, and couldn't let the facts get in the way."ReplyDelete
Confirmation bias is what Mueller was best known for long before the SCO farce. His history speaks for itself. But nobody ever listens. As usual.
Barnett's revelations raise interesting questions about Rosenstern' lack of effective oversight of Mueller's "Capt. Ahab" rogue prosecutors madly persuing the Great Orange Whale to the Ends of the Earth, evidence (or lack thereof) notwithstanding.ReplyDelete
Rosenstein's role has always been a huge question--or rather, there are multiple unanswered questions about his role.Delete
Q. for MW:ReplyDelete
it appears to me the answers provided by Barnett do not seem to follow any sensible temporal ordering. His answers jump from 2016 to late 2017 or later, and then jump back in time to 2016, and so on.
In a timeline sense, it bounces all over the place.
Is this normal for a 302 interview?
It seems as though the document has been edited, pieces deleted, and reassembled in an order that may not reflect the order in which his answers were originally given.
It depends on the individual interviewer. Different people may prefer to organize by timeline or by theme. It may depend on the given interview. I almost reflexively like to follow a timeline in almost anything I do.Delete
I don't recall that much bouncing around. It basically follows the timeline. However, yes, an interview or conversation--and a good interview is usually more like a conversation CAN bounce around. Then when it comes time to do the 302 the agent may reassemble it in a more narratival form, following more of a timeline, or organized thematically. A transcript can be quite hard to follow. I know most people are all for video recordings and, presumably, structured questioning, almost like an interrogation. But most successful interviews are more like a conversation.
"...most successful interviews are more like a conversation."Delete
Possibly a consideration in not videoing interviews. As soon as that little red light blinks on people change and no longer behave "naturally". Much harder to interpret meaning of behavior, tics, physiology, etc.
I think what most people have in mind when they say all interviews should be videotaped is: custodial interviews of the subject of an investigation.Delete
That may be a fairly common occurence for a police officer, but for most FBI agents it's a tiny minority of the interviews that they conduct. I won't advocate one way or the other except to say that IMO unscrupulous prosecutors are a far larger problem than unscrupulous FBI agents.
Did you meanDelete
"... a good interview is usually more like a conversation **that** CAN bounce around"?
Fantastic analysis, Mr. Wauck. Thank you for this.ReplyDelete
Regarding the overall issue of "predicate" ...
One is forced to speculate if (during phase 2 of CR) Weissmann/Strzok & Co. were attempting to cross-pollinate the Logan Act and FARA charges in order to justify a workable and sufficiently threatening charge.
If so, that tactic is hauntingly similar to Weissmann's approach to the Arthur Anderson case.
That is ... attempting to create new law in the form of hybrid charges.
Notwithstanding the benefits of the 302 process, we have certainly seen that it can be abused. Question is: how often?ReplyDelete
Now that is a great place to start REALrefkrm of DOJReplyDelete
How hollow does Susan Rice's CYA memo ring now in light of Barnett's testimony? Seems the narrative battle will be fought on the grounds if Predication.ReplyDelete
I hold hope that Barr and Durham are proceeding by the book. Congress needs to update the book to stop the ability of agencies to target American citizens. This is not a first time offense. They got comfortable.Delete
No doubt about it. There have to be changes. The GWOT has brought our republic to his knees. The special powers given to the executive for the GWOT have turned on We The People--or, on We The Unwoke People.Delete
"GWOT has brought our republic to his knees"...George W of Texas. And yes, I'm looking at you Yoo...too.Delete
Sen Ron Johnson pushes back against Bartiromo's sources...He says it would be a 'political' judgment NOT to share with the American people what Durham has found before the election.Delete
"The special powers given to the executive for the GWOT have turned on We The People", as was *expected* by folks like Ron Paul.Delete
Like trouble w/ FISA was *expected* by folks like Bork.
Hopefully their schools of thought will get more respect, than was given previously.
Now that would be the place to start a REAL return to blind justice.ReplyDelete
Mark, isn’t the SCO “checking process” still being carried out? E.g. Judge Sullivan’s antics?ReplyDelete
What is your opinion of how this ends?ReplyDelete
I'm sorry--it's really difficult to speculate on that because we simply don't have a handle on how far this investigation 'sprawls.' Bringing in Jensen and Bash is a strong indication that the reach could be significant.Delete
Maria Bartiromo is reporting this morning that her sources tell her Durham will not file indictments before the election.Delete
I've pretty much assumed that the recent revelations--which are very significant--are more or less a down payment on future full payment. To assure the nation that progress is being made.Delete
"To assure the nation that progress is being made."Delete
Most of "the nation" knows nothing of this "progress".
Even most Fox shows say far more about covid, etc. than about these revelations.
"a down payment on future full...."
It's brutal to be hearing the death-rattle of a once-great nation.
re: "pending unsealing by Court" redactions.ReplyDelete
I think I figured out the more likely explanation: Grand jury testimony/evidence.
Whether they have also lead to sealed indictments remains to be seen. But 6e material is I think the simplest and most likely explanation for those redactions marked as such.
It's possible that Barnett was questioned regarding material that was obtained through the GJ--subpoenaed or testimonial. That would explain it. Such material could be used for official law enforcement purposes according to Rule 6, but not otherwise disclosed.Delete
I wonder whose GJ it was; Durham's or Jensen's?Delete
Rereading the Barnett "302":ReplyDelete
there are several odd things about it.
Narrative Statements are jammed into the report that do not indicate Barnett, or anyone else, said them. IS that normal for a 302?
The big anomaly is at the end. There is no ending at all!
It just stops in mid-air!
There's nothing about "what were the last things you did with SCO?" "When did you stop working on CR?"
I can't help but feel this can't possibly be the complete 302; there's just too much missing that you'd expect to be included.
The more I read it, the more it feels like an excerpt culled from a much longer document. Could Part II of the Barnett interview be waiting in the wings, about to make its grand entrance?
Excellent read. One of my takeaways is that everyone is expecting Flynn to be exonerated and they are foreseeing a massive lawsuit run by high-powered attorneys. Durham himself has to be careful about denying Flynn Brady material and being sued for it, because Flynn will go after everyone who has crossed him. That seems to be Jensen's function...namely, being an outside set of eyes to serve as neutral reviewer and not involved with any of forthcoming prosecutions. In order words, he has no dog in the hunt to withhold evidence from Sidney Powell.ReplyDelete
It seems as if the varied teams are presently composed of attorneys and agents acutely aware that more than an IG could be bearing down on their professional and economic status fairly shortly.
I disagree to this extent ...Delete
I do not think that Jensen is a "neutral observer." He's leading what could be called the "Flynn Team" for Barr and it seems very clear from the 302 that he's targeting both top FBI management as well as Team Mueller attorneys (Weissmann, Rhee, ...) for prosecution.
Check out SWC's commetns today:Delete
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1310080095105605632 <<
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1310080098465243138 <<
He independently arrives at the same conclusion I did; this is not a complete 302 interview!
Jensen culled only that which related to the Flynn case, and dropped into this interview report, so it could be handed over as exculpatory material Flynn's attorney is entitled to.
You and SWC? What about me?Delete
"In this regard, there are signs in the 302 that this write-up may be only one of several."
"You and SWC? What about me? "
I posted in haste, and forgot to add you to the list of "enlightened analysts."
Actually, following the link you provided I see now that Sidney Powell linked me and SWC republished. I expect this to be a slow Russia Hoax day, so I'll post that thread, because SWC--as usual--expands nicely.Delete
"...more than an IG could be bearing down on their professional and economic status fairly shortly."ReplyDelete
Is the economic status of the small group a large enough pie to feed all who wish to enjoy it? Let us pray that it is and that more pie will come from the professional liability policies.
It is all meaningless if trump is "couped" in November...Barr has no intention of contributing to the unrest that will unfold election evening. Count on that, unfortunately.ReplyDelete
"if Trump is "couped" in November.... Barr has no intention of contributing to the unrest...."Delete
By failing to bring charges, he is spurring the prospect of Trump being "couped", and of contributing to the unrest.
Were the public to be clearly told of the magnitude
of the plot vs. the Const., they'd be far more likely to back DJT's effort to quell the unrest/ coup.
Instead, because Barr lays in tall grass, most voters will be voting w/ catastrophic ignorance of these historic circumstances.
Requiem for a Republic.
Is four years just not enough time to investigate and bring warranted charges for any criminal violations? How much time is needed? A decade? Half a century?ReplyDelete
Maybe after democrats have gained total control of all branches of government, "fundamentally transformed" America, and all opposing parties have been banned as un-American?
Maybe our descendants will be told about some secret heroism by inner party agents to save Oceania from a dangerous group of terrorists.